Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third Time on Tuesday 4 March.

LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 4 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Benefits System (Discrimination)

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce discrimination against couples in the benefit system. [15737]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): We intend to bring the benefits for new lone parents and couples with children more into line. From April 1998, new lone parents will receive the same rate of family premium and child benefit as do married couples with children. Existing claimants will continue to receive the current higher rates of cash benefit, but those rates will not be increased in April 1997. As well as being a more even-handed system, this will save around £0.5 billion a year.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: As my right hon. Friend has confirmed, if his plan for a fairer family benefit system is brought in, it will save £500 million in the long term. If it is not implemented, will that not mean that public expenditure will have to be increased by £500 million or that the benefits of pensioners and disabled people will have to be cut? Has my right hon. Friend had any representations from the Labour party, which believes in what is called a fixed social security budget and which has opposed the reforms all the way through, to find out what benefits it intends to cut?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and the answer is that I am afraid that I have received no reply to the repeated letters that I have sent to the Opposition spokesman to find out what the Labour party intends to replace those savings with, should it, alas, find itself in power. Labour Members have said that they will stick to

the departmental budgets laid down by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the Treasury. If they are to forgo £500 million from those savings and spend more money on benefits for lone parents, they must, by definition, take it from other groups—families, single people without children, pensioners or the disabled.

Mr. Alan Howarth: What has the Secretary of State to say about the shocking fact that, for one in five couples of working age, neither partner is in work? Is that not because the Government have vastly increased the number of households on means-tested benefits while holding down earnings disregards? Is not the perversity of the Government's policy that, when one partner loses a job, it makes sense for the other to give up work?

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to welcome the decline by some 300,000 in the number of households in the position that he describes. I am sure that he does not wish to give universally benefits to the non-working partner in a household, regardless of the income of the person in work, because he knows full well that that would be prohibitively expensive. He certainly knows that Labour Front Benchers cannot commit themselves to anything like that because they have accepted our spending totals. It is all very well for Labour Back Benchers to demand more money; they should speak to their Front Benchers, who say that our spending totals are exactly right.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that married couples will welcome those reforms because not only are the reforms fairer to married couples, but they have felt discriminated against in recent years because they have been paying tax out of their pockets to support lone parents? Do not the reforms also pass a clear message that we want to encourage young people to have family relationships in which they are committed to each other and stay together for the sake of their children?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. There can be no basis in the long term for a less generous benefit system for married couples than exists for lone parents. I welcome the comments of the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee that, if we seize this nettle, it should be supported by the Opposition. I have not noticed that it is being supported by the Opposition as yet.

Ms Harman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, for lone mothers, the most important thing is not to depend on benefits paid by other families but to get off benefits and into work? Having cut lone mothers' benefits and abused lone mothers at the Tory party conference with his little list, why has he now given lone mothers a little leaflet? Although it cost £750,000, the leaflet tells lone mothers nothing about jobs, child care or training; it tells them only about how to get more leaflets about more benefits. Will he acknowledge that his policy of saying to lone mothers, "Here is your income support; come back when your youngest child is 16," has left 1 million mothers on income support, 2 million children on the breadline and a £10 billion bill for the taxpayer? Why does not he take up Labour's welfare-to-work proposals and invite lone mothers into the jobcentre for help and advice?

Mr. Lilley: The House will notice that the hon. Lady has not chosen to inform us where she will get the £500 million that she wants to spend on higher benefits for new lone parents.
However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the best possibility for lone parents is to get back to work. That is why we have sustained in-work benefits, notably family credit. That is why we have improved them by giving a child care allowance within family credit. That is why we have improved them further by giving a carry-on of housing benefit at the existing rate for a month after return to work. That is why we are sending out a leaflet spelling out the advantages of getting back to work, spelling out those extra benefits and spelling out the availability of child care help. I am surprised and astonished that the hon. Lady chooses to ridicule it. On second thoughts, I am not surprised: it is typical.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for far too long, the benefit system has discriminated in favour of lone parents as opposed to married couples and that it is a long-overdue reform that married couples should now receive the same as lone parents? Has he received representations from the Labour party to the effect that it is prepared to pay lone parents another £20 a week on top of what they currently receive, and what would that cost?

Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend. He may be unconsciously echoing almost exactly the words of the only Opposition Member who has made similar points—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who used very similar words. I understand that the Opposition now propose to allow a maintenance disregard, which effectively will give an advantage of up to £20 a week to lone parents who receive maintenance from the absent father as a result of our efforts, so it will be a disincentive for them to return to work. That must militate in exactly the opposite direction to that which the Labour spokesman advocated a few moments ago.

Pensioner Incomes

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) of 5 February, Official Report, columns 637–38, if he will uprate pensions in line with earnings. [15738]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): No. If the basic pension had been increased by the higher of earnings or prices since 1980, the total extra burden on the taxpayer would be £8.6 billion in 1997–98.

Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the pledge given in the 1979 election campaign that the Conservatives would increase pensions along with the prosperity of the country? In every one of the past 18 years they have cheated on that promise. Pensions will be £62.45 in April; they should be £82.60. Is it not true that, throughout those years, the Conservatives have never honoured that promise, and is it not the case that we cannot trust the Tories on pensions? Will the hon. Gentleman answer without blaming the last Labour Government or the next Labour Government?

Mr. Heald: The last time that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that subject, I costed his proposals at

£65 billion by 2030, but, if one takes into account his proposals for income support, that figure is too low—the cumulative figure would be more than £100 billion by then. He might like to ask his Front-Bench team where the cuts would fall to pay for his proposals. However, the Conservative Government have maintained the value of the basic state pension, encouraged private provision and given extra help to those most in need, and average pensioner incomes have increased by 60 per cent.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend recall that the last time that pensions were uprated with earnings was under the last Labour Government? That was a time when the increase in earnings was less than the rate of inflation, so the population generally were less well off in real terms. The then Government wanted the pensioners to share with the general public being less well off in real terms. It saved money for the Exchequer. The Labour Government did that, not because they believed in it, but because they were required to do so by the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Heald: Under this Government, average incomes have gone up by as much each year as they did during the whole period of the last Labour Government. One has only to examine Labour's proposal to equalise the state pension age at 60, with a reduced pension of £40 a week, to see that that would spell disaster for those who later required income support and were refused it. Labour has always meant difficulties and poverty for pensioners, and it still would with its current policies.

State Pension

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the state retirement pension. [15739]

Mr. Lilley: The basic pension is the cornerstone of income in retirement. We remain committed to protecting the value of state pensions, and they will be increased in line with prices from April at a gross cost of £730 million.

Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind that pensioners' incomes have risen 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979, will my right hon. Friend advise pensioners to beware of the Opposition's policies, which would undermine savings by allowing inflation to rise, tax private pension funds that had invested in the privatised utilities, and fail to match the Conservative record of uprating each year the state retirement pension by at least as much as price inflation?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend can be reassured. We will give such warnings loud and clear to all the pensioners in this country. What she says is correct. The utilities tax would bear heavily on the pension funds that pay the pensions of retired people. She is right, too, to warn of the past failure and possible future failure of Labour Governments to uprate the basic pension. They did not do so properly in 1976, and it cost pensioners then £1 billion. Pensioners should be warned that the shadow Chancellor recently said:
there cannot be an assumption that totals will be automatically adjusted upwards in the event of changes in inflation.
I asked for an assurance from the Opposition that they would continue uprating, but assurance came there none.

Mr. Denham: Will the Secretary of State condemn every Tory candidate who claims that Labour would cut the basic state pension by £20 a week? Will he condemn that concerted lie campaign, which is designed to create alarm and fear among elderly people, or does he support that disgraceful campaign—yes or no?

Mr. Lilley: I happen to have with me a copy of a letter from the shadow spokesman for social security, which she wrote to me spontaneously. It states:
We anticipate … a lower level of basic state pension.
It also states:
We would seek the advice of the Government Actuary.
I have sought that advice for her. He said that if her objective of making the pension available at age 60 were to be possible without a £15 billion extra cost, it would be necessary to reduce the basic state pension by £20 a week. Accordingly, I am happy to endorse my hon. Friends and candidates who are telling the truth loud and clear, far and wide.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I took advice from an expert on pensions—my mother? She is 85 years of age and has just moved up to Lichfield. She first went on the state pension in 1972. She tells me that the worst time for pensions was in 1975 and 1976, when inflation was running at 25 per cent. and the Government cut the Christmas bonus. Can my right hon. Friend tell me which party was in power at that time?

Mr. Lilley: I can certainly remind my hon. Friend—I am sure that his expert mother has reminded him, too—that it was the Labour party which failed to uprate basic pensions at that time, which cost pensioners £1 billion and which is now warning us that, in order to keep within the totals that we have established for Departments, it will not necessarily adjust those totals upwards, in line with inflation.

Habitual Residence Test

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent assessment his Department has made of the operation of the habitual residence test. [15740]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Our monitoring of the habitual residence test confirms that it is succeeding in its primary purpose of narrowing access to benefit for people who have little or no recent commitment to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Timms: Does the Minister agree that there are continuing problems with the operation of the test, not least with the inconsistent way that it is being applied by different offices? First, does he agree that benefits offices should be encouraged to work as closely as possible with advice agencies to ensure that people attending habitual residence interviews are well informed beforehand as to what they will be asked and how the questions will be presented? Secondly, has the Minister considered the possibility of helping to provide interpreters when interviewees do not speak good English?

Mr. Evans: I am happy to say yes to both the hon. Gentleman's questions. As to the first, the welfare action

rights group in his area of Newham regularly meets the local Benefits Agency representatives to discuss those matters. We are aware of questions about whether the scheme is operating equally in different districts, and that matter has been examined.
Secondly, it is obviously important that interpreters should be provided for those people who require assistance as their command of English is not sufficient, and we shall look into that issue. If the hon. Gentleman has further constituency points to make on the matter, I shall be happy to address them. I have written today to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has raised similar issues with me.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of taxpayers find it repugnant that individuals think that they can come to this country, present themselves at a social security office, and receive a cheque that is paid for by the British taxpayers, when those individuals have had no connection with this country for many years?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. We face some difficulty because European Union nationals are entitled to come to this country and, as a matter of legal entitlement before we introduced the habitual residence test, receive the full range of income-related benefits. We introduced the test because it is the one thing that we are allowed to do under European law, and it is embodied in one of the earliest European Union directives, 408/71.

Income Support (Pensioners)

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners claim the income support to which they are entitled. [15741]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): The Department and its agencies take extensive action to publicise income support and other benefits that pensioners may choose to claim. Help is there for those who need it.

Mr. Jones: Clearly, the extensive action that the Minister talks about is completely inadequate. Will he confirm that 1 million pensioners are £14 a week worse off because they do not claim their full entitlement? What effective measures do the Government intend to take in order to deliver their fair and full entitlement to those people who have contributed to this country throughout their lifetime?

Mr. Burt: A range of effective action can be, and is being, taken. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the campaign that the Benefits Agency ran in January and the document entitled "Pensions and Benefits: a guide for older people". Publicity in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Cardiff includes weekly benefit sessions at one of the community centres, fortnightly benefit advice at one of the hospitals and monthly benefit advice at another. Regular benefit talks are given to community groups and information appears in the local newspaper, of which I have some copies.
We have discovered over the years that, unless we target campaigns specifically, take-up will not increase. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has anything



in mind regarding widespread take-up campaigns—those on his Front Bench have not mentioned it. For the time being, the Benefits Agency is doing extensive work in order to advertise benefits for those who need them.

Mrs. Roe: Can my hon. Friend confirm that he has received no workable proposals for identifying additional pensioners who are entitled to income support beyond the measures that the Government are taking already? Will he confirm also that, even if it were possible, paying income support to an extra 700,000 pensioners would cost more than £1 billion? Has he received any representations from the Labour party about what other benefits it would cut by £1 billion in order to remain within a fixed budget?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is often forgotten that more than 1.5 million pensioners already claim some £25 billion. My hon. Friend is correct to say that I have received no workable proposals from Opposition Members regarding a campaign.

Mr. McLeish: What about the fraud Bill?

Mr. Burt: That was not workable. Proposals that use the Inland Revenue, which does not have information on savings, for example, will not do the job. Benefits campaigns must be targeted and, in the absence of any workable proposals, Opposition Members are left spouting empty words and offering no sensible ideas about how to bring more people into benefit.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister's response provides a chilling example of how callously indifferent Ministers are to the plight of Britain's pensioners. Is he not seriously embarrassed that 1 million pensioners in Britain—10 per cent. of the total number of pensioners, or 1,500 pensioners in every constituency—live not on the breadline but below it? Does he not appreciate that that is a blight on Britain's pensioners, who have given so much and are receiving so little from the Government? Will he acknowledge that, in a few weeks' time, a Labour Government will reduce VAT on fuel, provide better health care and start to attack the scandal of Britain in 1997 having 1 million pensioners who are not getting what they are entitled to?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is long on rhetoric but short on any practical proposals. I certainly deny the last part of his claims. Pensioners do not claim for a variety of reasons. It is wrong to suggest that all pensioners who do not claim income support are living below poverty levels; many live with families and enjoy the family life style.
It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman—for all his wind—does not come up with anything specific to bring more people into benefit. He does not give proper credit to the work done by many information officers at Benefits Agency offices throughout the country, who work hard with pensioners' groups and others. It is about time that we heard a little bit of credit for their honest hard work in trying to do their job.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the Labour party is the same party that, a few moments ago, was complaining about information leaflets being sent to single mothers. Were

not the Government criticised roundly for television campaigns and for the money that was spent on advertising to tell people about their benefits? Is it not the responsibility of individuals to find out what is available to them and for the Government to do their best, as they do in the clear leaflets that are provided in all social security offices, to get that information to them?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The departmental budget for publicity over the current three-year period is about £84 million. He is right. The Labour party cannot have it both ways: criticising the leaflets and not accepting that we have to get information across to people if benefits provision is to be sensible and good.

Asylum Seekers (Benefits)

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of denial of benefits on asylum seekers and their families awaiting (a) a decision or (b) the result of an appeal. [15743]

Mr. Roger Evans: The changes that we introduced last year are reducing financial incentives for illegal immigrants and over-stayers to claim asylum.

Mr. Cohen: Were not the Government humbled and shamed by the Court of Appeal decision on 17 February that asylum seekers should be entitled to food and shelter, not starved as the Government wanted? Were not the Government cruel and wrong to make families, especially children, destitute while the asylum seeker was awaiting his or her appeal to be heard? Will the Government accept that judgment, fully compensate local authorities and now act humanely and responsibly?

Mr. Evans: The answer is simply no. As far as the Collins judgment is concerned, the courts have disturbed a construction of the National Assistance Act 1948 which has stood and been worked on for nearly half a century. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be pursuing that matter further in the courts.
The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that the measures have been strikingly successful in reducing the number of in-country applications. Taking the last quarter of 1996 as opposed to 1995, the number of such applications is down by more than 70 per cent. The gross savings involved in those measures are in the region of £250 million for 1997–98.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that, from the beginning, it was known that the changes to the benefit rules would have some impact on councils and charities and that councils would in the end be compensated for that? Will not most people think it reasonable and, indeed, justified that those people who came to this country on the basis that they would not be a burden on the state, who would not be able to claim benefits, should continue in that position and not suddenly change their minds and become a burden on the British state?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. The three groups that are directly affected by those measures are, first, illegal immigrants; secondly, people who have entered this country saying that they are visitors, business men or students and have means to support themselves; and, thirdly, those who have sought asylum and have had an unfavourable decision from the independent adjudicating authorities, which have said that they are not refugees.
We have met, and are meeting, the extra expense placed on local authorities by special grant orders. We have said that, if voluntary organisations think that a case is genuine and deserving, and if they support that person in the meantime, almost uniquely in the benefits system, if the person wins his appeal, he will receive benefits backdated to the beginning of the period in which he made his claim.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are used by the CSA to decide which parent has care of the children when parents have separated but are still living in the same house with their children. [15744]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The Child Support Agency can take on a case only where the parents genuinely maintain separate households. The "parent with care" is the parent who cares for a child for the greater number of nights or, if neither parent satisfies that criterion, the parent who receives child benefit for the child.

Mr. Rendel: Does not that lead to unfairness in some cases? For example, one of my constituents owns the house in which his ex-wife still lives rent-free. He pays for the housing costs and most of the clothing and food costs of his children. He is not even allowed to claim shared care, on the grounds that there is no date on which the children leave the home in which the mother lives to move to the home in which the father lives. Of course there is not, because they live in the same home the whole time.

Mr. Mitchell: I have looked at the specific case that the hon. Gentleman raises. His constituents share a house, but they say that they maintain separate households, and they disagree on the amount of shared care under consideration. During the period in question, the hon. Gentleman's constituent was abroad for six months, so it is difficult to see how he can have had shared care in that time. If the circumstances change, he can appeal. He has already made an appeal, and it will be heard in due course. It seems to me that the agency has handled that specific case correctly.
There has been a rapid improvement in the service provided by the Child Support Agency in the past 18 months. There is still a long way to go, but, in the words of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, the CSA is now running "rather well".

Sir David Mitchell: Would my hon. and filial Friend look into the case of my constituent Mr. Flint? He remarried, had twins, received a pay increase of £31 a month and, on reassessment by the CSA, had his

maintenance payments increased by £41 a month. Would my hon. and filial Friend investigate that case further and see what he can do to put it right?

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of that question. He sets a good example to the House for diligent representation of one's constituents. I shall look into the case, but although his constituent has recently had the happy arrival of twins, he has also had a significant pay rise of 20 per cent.

Mr. Wicks: I am sure that the last two hon. Gentlemen who spoke have benefited from effective child maintenance policies during their lives. On a more serious note, will the Minister confirm that, all these years after the Child Support Act 1991, the great majority of lone mothers and their children receive no child maintenance? Does he accept that, in the absence of an effective and acceptable child maintenance policy, complemented by a welfare-to-work strategy, most lone mothers and their children are trapped in a dependency state on income support? Does he agree that that is bad news for the taxpayer, bad news for the mothers, and, most important, tragic for the children?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. He is wrong to say that most parents and children do not receive maintenance. Recent published figures show that 78 per cent. of the mothers who have come within the remit of the CSA receive maintenance in part or in full.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government have introduced a welfare-into-work strategy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described the parent plus scheme as one of the best schemes anywhere in the world. It will be extremely effective in ensuring that lone parents have opportunities to get back into work. While the Government are establishing a scheme and putting money on the table to run it, all we get from the Labour party is pious waffle and pre-electioneering soundbites, which will do no good and will not help lone parents.

Child Care

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the availability of child care for lone parents. [15745]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Government have taken, and are taking, effective steps to help those who need child care in order to work.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister tell us at last why lone parents in Britain are the most dependent on benefits, and the least likely to work, in the whole of Europe? Is he not concerned about the fact that that is costing the taxpayer more than £10 billion a year, and that the figure is rising? Is there not an urgent need for a national child care strategy?

Mr. Mitchell: The Government have made a good many changes specifically to help with child care costs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the workings of family credit, and will know that the child care disregard was recently increased from £40 to £60. He should also know that, since 1993, the Department for Education and


Employment has provided start-up grants which have generated more than 72,000 out-of-school child care places, and that, in his recent Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put £24 million on the table for further out-of-school places. We have invested £64 million in that scheme.
Again, all we hear from the Opposition is a reannouncement of our policies, along with a load of pre-election wind. The Government's out-of-school child care policies have been very successful.

Mr. Viggers: A typical lone parent is a woman bringing up children, but is my hon. Friend aware that I have been corresponding with his Department about a different classification—men who are widowers, and have the dual problem of trying to do their jobs and bring up their children at the same time? Will my hon. Friend take full account of widowers' interests in shaping Government support measures?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As he implied, some 5 per cent. of lone parents are men. I shall bear in mind what he has said.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the steps that the Government have taken, but Ministers will know that children under 16 should not be left unattended. At times, that is very difficult for mothers who are alone—not necessarily because they are single parents but for other reasons: for instance, their husbands may be serving abroad. Have the Government taken account of that clash between the law and pressures on mothers bringing up children? Those mothers need more family credit.

Mr. Mitchell: The Government recognise the tension to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In such circumstances, they consider it right for a mother to choose whether to work or to remain on benefit. They also point out, however, that the way out of benefit and towards independence is returning to work. It is not good for a child to see the state as the sole breadwinner: it is important for the parent also to be seen as the breadwinner.

Discrimination (Disabled Persons)

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Government are taking to prevent discrimination against disabled persons. [15746]

Mr. Burt: The Government introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to spearhead the fight to prevent discrimination against disabled people. On 2 December, we implemented new rights for disabled people in employment, and in accessing goods and services. The Act is essential if disabled people are to live their lives fully and independently.

Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. How are the Government helping the National Disability Council in its task of monitoring the Act?

Mr. Burt: We fund the National Disability Council—which is charged to deliver advice, either on our invitation or on its own initiative—for all aspects of monitoring anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom.
The council differs from a commission. I noticed during last night's debate that the Labour party had changed its position crucially. It, and some members of the disability lobby, originally intended a commission to deal with cases on behalf of disabled people, but last night the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) excluded that definition from his description of the commission's work. I want to know whether that was because Labour agrees with us that a commission is not necessary because disabled people enforce individual rights, or whether, again, it is because Labour has been left without a budget, and would therefore have a commission in name only. The National Disability Council can do a much better job.

Ms Lynne: The Minister said in the debate on health yesterday that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was the flagship of Government policy on disabled people. If that is the case, why cannot it be used to force building societies such as the Halifax to give share options to the second named account holder, most of whom are disabled people? If the Act cannot be used in that way, surely he must agree that his flagship is missing at least a couple of masts.

Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady will probably be aware that there is a dispute of opinion about whether the action by the building societies contravenes the Act. I believe that someone is preparing to test it because the Act does prevent discrimination against disabled people and it may yet cover that situation. However, to avoid doubt, I think that the House would welcome the action taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who has introduced the Building Societies (Distributions) Bill, which will ensure that this problem does not happen in future. We have been delighted to give support and encouragement to his work.

Mr. Llwyd: Is the Minister aware that some 43,000 women in the United Kingdom are discriminated against because, when they reach the age of 60, their incapacity benefit is discontinued, whereas if they were male it would continue until the age of 65? Does he know that, during an Adjournment debate last week, I had the privilege of debating that point and his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, told me, "Yes, it is discrimination, but don't worry: the Government will put it right in 2020."?

Mr. Burt: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has it right. This is covered by the Graham case, which has been taken to the European Court of Justice. Our policies have been found not to be discriminatory in the way that he describes. This has been fully tested by the court and the British Government's position has been upheld.

Child Benefit Register

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the provision of information on the child benefit register to other Government Departments and local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [15747]

Mr. Heald: Although no representations have been received by my right hon. Friend, I know that a variety of uses have been suggested for the child benefit database, for example as part of efforts to combat truancy.

Mr. Thurnham: Following the tragic disappearance and death of young Tommy Oakes in Bolton, will the Minister consider allowing local authorities access to the child benefit register to try to trace a missing youngster, and does not Bolton's new pupil attendance register allow child benefit to be linked to school attendance?

Mr. Heald: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a particular interest in the case of Tommy Oakes, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, has taken an interest in the Bolton scheme to set up a register of school attendance, but it is too early to evaluate that scheme fully. The French scheme, which the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has also raised with me, has been rarely enforced. The Benefits Agency co-operates with social services in cases involving children who are at risk, but child benefit data are sensitive and data protection has to be considered.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that children between the ages of 16 and 18 would lose all chance of being on the child benefit register if benefit were taken away from them, as Labour proposes to do?

Mr. Heald: It is, I suppose, a particularly stupid idea to impose on parents of 16 to 18-year-olds a tax that means that they cannot support their children through the difficult years when their children are training. For Labour—which talks so often of training—to suggest that is particularly stupid. I know that my hon. Friend has made that point on a number of occasions.

Parent Plus Scheme

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of lone parents who will be eligible for the parent plus scheme. [15748]

Mr. Lilley: The parent plus scheme is a key part of our strategy to reduce benefit dependency by encouraging lone parents to support themselves and their families through work. We estimate that the scheme will offer advice and help to up to 100,000 lone parents on income support who wish to return to work.

Mr. Sheerman: Where have the Government been for the past 17 years? A dependency culture has grown over those 17 years, year on year, and ever more young lone mothers depend on low benefits. Those young mothers want an opportunity culture, not a dependency culture. It is too late for this Government, but the new Labour Government will introduce opportunity, not dependency, for those mothers.

Mr. Lilley: We have been here: introducing family credit to help lone parents back into work; extending aid to provide a child care disregard to help lone parents back into work; and introducing parent plus to help lone parents back into work. The Leader of the Opposition—who has just entered the Chamber—goes off to Amsterdam to

announce Labour's policy to help lone parents back into work, as well he might. The second plank of his plan was that he
would relax the 16 hour rule for lone parents under 25 and without qualifications.
He should know that there is no limit on the amount of study that lone parents can undertake. Therefore, he was completely misinformed. It is no wonder that he goes abroad to make speeches about domestic policy. If he made them at home, he would be laughed out of court.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15767]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers who queued up yesterday to denigrate the reputation and character of the former Prime Minister and Father of the House? Does he agree that such attempts to vilify the Father of the House do great damage generally to the democratic process and particularly to the reputation of the Prime Minister and his Ministers?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has had a long and distinguished career. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We admire him and are fond of him.

Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15768]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of British Rail has been a great success story—so successful that it has confounded its critics? Is he aware that many of my constituents would like the same principles to be applied to London Underground, particularly if the proceeds were ploughed back into further investment?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement on that matter very shortly. The plans that he will announce will give London the world-class underground network that we wish it to have. We will expect standards and investment to rise while prices do not.

Mr. Blair: Most people remember who has been in charge of London Underground for 18 years. May I lead on from the question to the Prime Minister asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby)? The Transport Secretary has said that any proceeds from


selling London Underground will go back into transport investment. This morning, however, the Chancellor said that he is relying on at least some of those proceeds as greatly benefiting the Exchequer to pay off Government borrowing. Who is right?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement that will answer all the questions that he and his hon. Friends are likely to ask about the proposed future of London Underground, but I shall not anticipate his statement.

Mr. Blair: I am not asking the Prime Minister to anticipate the statement—

Hon. Members: You are.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Blair: I am asking him to comment on the Chancellor's remarks this morning. The Chancellor said that some of the proceeds would be used to pay off the national debt, which he has doubled. Is that correct? If all the proceeds do not go back into transport, what will happen if they do not cover the investment requirement? Will the customer pay more, will the public pay more or will the service be cut? I think that the Prime Minister should tell us.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be told in detail and at length by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in just a few moments. The privatisation of any industry is always a complex matter. It deserves to be set out clearly, comprehensively and at length, which my right hon. Friend will do shortly.

Mr. Blair: I assume that the Transport Secretary will tell us the precise percentage of money that will be reinvested in transport. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but is not London Underground worth £7 billion to £13 billion, and do not many people fear that, once again, a key public service will be sold off at a fraction of its true value so that a few people can make a vastly inflated profit with no guarantee of a proper service for the future?

The Prime Minister: The answer to each of the right hon. Gentleman's questions is no. He is wrong on almost every point, as will become clear in a few moments. I find it extraordinary that the only two places in the world where privatisation is reviled and state ownership preferred are the Labour party and North Korea. No wonder the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) called the right hon. Gentleman the Kim Il Sung of the Labour party.

Mr. Norris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not the least of the advantages of the privatisation of London Underground would be the substantial capital receipts that could be reinvested in the system? How could any Government who voluntarily chose to deny themselves that capital receipt make good that funding other than through a substantial increase in public expenditure and the taxation necessary to raise it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct, of course. I find it odd that the Labour party criticises the

level of investment in London Underground when the shadow Chancellor is committed lock, stock and barrel to every penny of my right hon. and learned Friend's spending plans, except that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has a £12 billion black hole in his plans, as he has failed to understand ours.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15769]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I return the Prime Minister to what is clearly a central contradiction in his programme for the general election—the statement by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir."] Forgive me, Madam Speaker. Sir Edward Heath—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—a former Prime Minister, who said that he agreed with the Labour party. He said that we were right on the social chapter, the national minimum wage and devolution. He agrees with us. Who is now standing up for the tradition of the Conservative party? Is it the Father of the House, a former Prime Minister, or is it the current Prime Minister, who has been manipulated by a bunch of extremists on his Back Benches?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman sits beside a bunch of people whom I would never consider calling extremists, but who hold almost every possible view on Europe and every other issue, so I find his question distinctly rum. It deserves to be ignored, which I shall do.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tomorrow, Her Majesty the Queen, in the presence of the President of Israel, will unveil a monument to Raul Wallenberg—a man whose bravery is an example to us all? Will my right hon. Friend also support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to find out exactly what happened to Raul Wallenberg 50 years ago?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone will happily support my hon. Friend's request. The unveiling of the statue tomorrow is a welcome development and a just recognition of a great man who saved many lives during the last world war.

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15770]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Home Robertson: Lady Thatcher said back in 1974 that the establishment of a Scottish Assembly was a top priority. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has now confirmed that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament poses no danger to the integrity of the United Kingdom. Can the Prime Minister remember the last time his two predecessors


agreed with each other about anything? How has he got himself into a position in which he appears to disagree with both of them?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: Wait for it. Is the Prime Minister sure that Britain's fossilised constitution is the securest ground to choose for Major's last stand?

The Prime Minister: It really was not worth waiting for, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman. He is trying to pick out what my noble Friend Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said 20 years ago. What the leader of the Labour party said in 1983 is contradicted today by the leader of the Labour party in every particular. The proposals of 20 years ago that the hon. Gentleman referred to were not comparable with the tax-raising monstrosity proposed by the Labour party today.

Mr. Butcher: My right hon. Friend will need no reminding that any objective assessment of economic trends in Europe shows that Britain is now winning. Does he share the bewilderment of a number of foreign commentators, who cannot understand the logic of saying that it is time for a change? "Does that mean that you want to be losers?" they wonder. Will my right hon. Friend use every effort to make sure that that weird logic is not accepted by the British people?

The Prime Minister: I certainly undertake to do as my hon. Friend recommends. The economic criteria right the way down the board—growth, investment or the fall in unemployment—make it patently obvious to those who wish to examine the figures for a moment that the United Kingdom is out-performing most of its comparable continental rivals. That is because of the policies that we have followed. The policies that they have followed, which have led them into greater difficulty, are the policies advocated by the Opposition parties.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15771]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) referred to the alleged success of railway

privatisation, whereby £19 billion of public assets went under the hammer for less than £2 billion. Is it not a disgrace that £13 billion of assets resting in London Underground could be sold off in a fire sale for less than £600 million?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, waits for the statement that will follow in a few moments.

Mr. Prentice: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman produces all sorts of disparaging gestures. The interesting fact about the new Labour party is that it does not wish to know the arguments and it does not wish to know the facts; it just wants to parade the soundbites and prejudice invented by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).

Mr. Allason: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the commitment—which became a promise, which became a pledge, which then became a withdrawal—by the Liberal Democrats to scrap the Christmas bonus in favour of an extra week's income? Does he agree that the best thing for pensioners, especially those in the south-west, is lower bills, which means no windfall levy on South West Water, whose customers are already paying far too much for their water?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree that a windfall tax would undoubtedly add to the cost of fuel, water and other utilities—how much, of course, we do not know, because the shadow Chancellor either does not know what his plans really are or cannot say. It was very unkind of my hon. Friend to draw attention to the consistency of the Liberal Democrats concerning the retired.

Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 February. [15772]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davies: What discussions does the Prime Minister intend to have with Governments of other nations to ensure that there are adequate international controls over the cloning of animals and other life forms?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is examining what discussions may be appropriate.

London Underground

Madam Speaker: Statement—Sir George Young.

Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Points of order come after statements, as I am sure the hon. Member recalls.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): With permission, I should like to make a statement about our proposals for the future of London Underground.
London Underground is the last of the traditional transport nationalised industries, and the only major transport operator that is not in the private sector. Since 1979, we have privatised a wide range of transport businesses—for example, British Airways, the British Airports Authority and, indeed, London Transport's bus operating companies. All of them have gone on to prosper, raising money from the market to invest in better services for their customers. Only London Underground remains in the public sector, its status becoming increasingly anomalous.
Most recently, we have of course privatised the national passenger rail network—a process that has now been completed, with the award of the last franchise for ScotRail. The benefits are already becoming apparent: an increase in passenger numbers; and new investment is already taking place or is in the pipeline. Railtrack has plans to spend £4 million a day on maintaining and renewing the rail network, and on stations, depots and network enhancements. By 2001, Railtrack estimates that it will have spent £1 billion more than the regulator expected. In addition, franchisees are committed to investing around £1.5 billion in new rolling stock and more than £100 million in improvements to stations and other facilities.
The decisions to proceed with Thameslink 2000 and the channel tunnel rail link show that major new projects can be undertaken within a privatised railway. Benefits for rail users are being achieved at a decreasing cost to the taxpayer. In seven years' time, the private sector franchisees will require only about 40 per cent. of the support that British Rail estimated it would have needed to run the same services this year. Rail privatisation has shown that the fact that an industry is loss-making is no barrier to its successful transfer to the private sector.
Against that background, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in October that we would be considering whether the benefits of privatisation could be extended to London Underground. We have completed the initial stages of that work and the Government have concluded that privatisation is the right way forward. The package that I will outline to the House will deliver a higher-quality underground at an affordable cost to passengers and no extra cost to the taxpayer.
Our purpose is to structure the privatisation so as to ensure that the underground is brought up to modern standards as soon as possible. Our aim is to complete the modernisation and improvement programme—that is the elimination of the investment backlog—within five years

of privatisation. In recent years, London Underground's management has raised customer satisfaction by a sixth, increased scheduled train services to a level not seen in 25 years, increased the underground's operating surplus from nothing to around £200 million a year, and reduced the investment backlog from £2 billion to £1.2 billion. Despite those great strides, much remains to be done if we are to achieve the standards of service that passengers want, at a cost which they and taxpayers can afford.
We believe that privatisation is the only means of achieving these goals. Privatisation will enable the private sector to invest in the network and respond to passengers' needs, unconstrained by the restrictions of public expenditure controls, and will create the stable financial environment which is simply not achievable in the public sector, with all the other competing demands on taxpayers' money. We want to privatise London Underground as soon as possible so that passengers can start enjoying these benefits without delay.
In deciding on the detailed structure for the privatised underground, we shall need to take account of the network's unique nature and operating characteristics, and to obtain further technical and financial advice. Specifically, detailed work will now begin on three possible models: the sale of London Underground as a single business; the sale or franchising of vertically integrated lines or groups of lines, under which a single operator would be responsible for the stations, track and trains on each line or group of lines; or a structure like the national railways model, with a track authority owning the network and franchisees running trains on individual lines or groups of lines.
We are already consulting London Transport and the railway inspectorate, and we shall now widen our discussions to involve the other key players in the railway industry, and those with an interest in London's transport system, such as the London Pride Partnership and the London Regional Passengers Committee. We also intend to start the process of appointing advisers. Our aim is to publish in the summer a White Paper with our detailed proposals for the best structural option for the future of the underground.
As with previous privatisations, there have been a number of scare stories in the media in recent weeks. I want to set the record straight by giving 10 commitments to passengers and employees. First, safety must always be a top priority. I shall be consulting the Health and Safety Commission in order to ensure that, whichever structural option we adopt, the very high safety standards of the network are maintained.
Secondly, we are committed to a fully integrated network for passengers, including through-ticketing and freedom of interchange between lines. There is no question of breaking up the network. Passengers will be able to use different lines for a journey and to choose the most suitable route, using one ticket in exactly the way that they do now.
Thirdly, the London travelcard will be retained. Regular tube users attach great value to the travelcard, which allows people to use the same ticket to travel by underground, rail or bus, without any restriction on the number of journeys they make. It is used by around a million people a day and accounts for more than two thirds of underground journeys. Our proposals will explicitly safeguard its future.
Fourthly, the existing Londonwide concessionary fares arrangements, which are of critical importance to many elderly and disabled people who rely on public transport, will not be affected by our proposals. Fifthly, on wider share ownership, we shall seek ways of encouraging employees and passengers to acquire a real stake in the privatised underground.
Sixthly, for underground employees, pensions and travel concessions at the time of privatisation will be safeguarded. Again, depending on the option we choose, we will be seeking to encourage employees to participate in management or employee buy-outs.
Seventhly, we shall ensure that the private sector will be required to provide a guaranteed level of service broadly safeguarding the existing level of provision. The regulatory authority supervising the privatised underground, which will be independent of the train operators, will agree to changes in service levels only after carefully considering the benefits to passengers. Again, that is a wholly new safeguard.
The eighth commitment concerns station safeguards. We shall retain strong and effective statutory procedures to deal with any proposals to close stations. The safeguards will be just as rigorous as those that already apply to London Underground and to the national rail network.
The ninth commitment is that we shall introduce controls on fares. The guiding principle will be that, for at least the first four years after privatisation, average fare rises will be no more than inflation. That is a new safeguard; underground fares have not previously been capped.
We also intend to restrain fares in the run-up to privatisation, by capping average fare increases at inflation plus 1 per cent. a year. Again, there has been no such explicit protection in the past, and in practice fares have tended to rise faster than that. The House will recall, for example, that between 1974 and 1979 fares increased by 45 per cent. in real terms.
That brings me to the 10th commitment, on investment. In the recent debate about the future of London Underground, a consensus emerged on two key principles with which I believe that the whole House can agree.
First, it must be a top priority to accelerate investment in London Underground so as to bring the network up to the standards that passengers can reasonably expect for the 21st century. Secondly, that goal can be achieved only if we create a stable funding regime that will enable investment to be planned ahead with confidence.
We are therefore developing a special funding regime for recycling privatisation proceeds into investment, which recognises the unique situation and needs of the underground. Receipts from privatisation will be recycled to ensure that the modernisation of the underground's infrastructure is completed as quickly as possible, building on the work that London Underground is already doing.
Our aim is to achieve that end within five years of privatisation, with the private sector operator committing himself to modernising the assets for which he is responsible, in return for a guaranteed level of Government support to supplement the investment funds that he himself will raise.
After privatisation proceeds hav e been recycled to complete the modernisation of the tube network, most of any remaining surplus will be channelled into additional

support for London Underground, or for transport investment elsewhere in London or in other parts of the country.
As for modernising the underground's basic infrastructure, the House will appreciate that there is a maximum level of annual investment beyond which it is not practicable to go. At a certain point, for example, disruptions to services from renewal works across the network would become too great, or the programme would be beyond the capacity of the supply industry. Subject to those practical constraints, we aim to privatise the underground in such a way that the network is modernised as soon as possible.
London Underground estimates that the upper limit for sensible investment in the core underground each year is about £750 million. Of course, passengers are interested in the results of investment—punctual and reliable services—not in the sums spent. I believe that the private sector will be able to deliver the results that passengers want, more efficiently.
Privatisation and the new regulatory regime will focus on the results of investment. But assuming that annual investment would be about £750 million, about £350 million a year would be needed to maintain the network and to renew assets as they became too old. The remaining investment would be aimed at eliminating the results of the under-investment in the underground in the 1960s and 1970s.
Sustained annual investment of about £750 million in the core underground would be significantly above what has been managed before. In real terms, that is more than four times what was achieved in the 1970s, three times the investment made in the 1980s, and 50 per cent. more than the investment made so far in the 1990s. I do not believe that that rate of progress would be possible if London Underground were to remain in the public sector.
The 10 commitments that I have given today show our determination to protect and enhance the aspects of the underground that are valued by tube users and by Londoners generally. At the same time, privatisation will introduce private sector capital, ideas and energy to increase investment and to raise standards.
That is an outstanding package for tube users and for Londoners. I do not believe that anything as attractive would be possible under continued public ownership, and I commend to the House the principle of privatising London Underground.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements.

Mr. Gale: The statement has been made.

Madam Speaker: A statement is a continuation of Question Time. It has always been the tradition that we take points of order after questions.

Mr. Gale: My point of order is relevant to the statement.

Madam Speaker: In that case, perhaps it could be put in the form of a question to the Secretary of State—if the hon. Gentleman catches my eye. There may be a glint in it already, but he must wait.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Is not this statement the ultimate Tory abdication of responsibility for transport in London, neither equipping London for the future nor making good the mistakes of the past? Is it not totally half-baked when the Secretary of State cannot tell us whether privatisation will be sale as a job lot, line by line, or as a track company and franchises? What makes him think that it will work, when he cannot even tell us how it will be done?
The Secretary of State referred to a guaranteed level of Government support. How much will that be? Is not there confusion at the very heart of Government when the Secretary of State tries to have us believe that the proceeds will go into the tube but the Chancellor tells a news conference this morning that he is relying on the money to balance his Budget? Does not that show that, having neglected the tube for years, with so much decay and disrepair, all the Tories have left is the dogma of run it down and sell it off, regardless of passengers' interests?
What confidence can the public have in the Secretary of State's list of commitments when in one breath he tells us that he is considering selling off the lines separately and in the next that there is no question of breaking up the network? Does he recall his words in the leaked letter of earlier this month? He said:
I do not want to set existing service patterns in stone—some services may well be uneconomic".
Was not his statement so qualified as to leave the way open for services to be cut and stations closed?
The Secretary of State extolled the benefits of rail privatisation. Is not the truth that under the Tories London would be threatened with the same chaos on the tube as we have just witnessed on South West Trains?
What notice has the Secretary of State taken of the warning from the chairman of London Transport, who said that privatising the tube was like putting a house on the market when the walls were falling down? What valuation has he made of the assets? Has he changed the estimate in his previous leaked memo that the sale could raise less than a tenth of the £13 billion reported value?
As with all the other privatisation excesses, would not this mean more fortunes for a few and misery for the many? Will the Secretary of State confirm what he said in that leaked letter: that it could cost more in subsidy to privatise the underground than the Government get back in sale proceeds?
How can privatisation some time in the next century raise the investment that is needed now? Would it not be far better to get moving straight away with public-private partnerships as Labour has proposed? Is not privatisation a desperate move by a Government bankrupt of ideas? Does not their dithering show that they know the dangers involved, and does the Secretary of State still agree with the Chief Secretary's assessment that the underground will be
a unique and very difficult privatisation to sell to the public"?
Is not this privatisation bad for London, bad for passengers and bad for taxpayers, because the Secretary of State can give no definitive guarantees about services or investment levels and cannot even tell us how much of the money raised he would use for investment? This is a privatisation that the British people will throw out at the ballot box, along with the Government who dreamed it up.

Sir George Young: I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition, who asked several questions about the privatisation of London Underground, did not stay to hear the statement.
The House and, indeed, Londoners will be deeply disappointed by the response of the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, which offered no hope and no commitment. Old Labour will not let him privatise; new Labour will not let him spend more. He is a shadow Transport Minister with nowhere to go. We have a coherent strategy. We have identified the funding and the commitments. We believe that it is an attractive proposition for Londoners.
The confusion on privatisation comes from Opposition Members, as we saw at the weekend over the Tote. One day they were to privatise it, the next they were not, and on the third day, they discovered that it was not theirs to privatise. The same will happen with this privatisation as has happened with every other privatisation: they will oppose it before we do it and afterwards say that it was perhaps a good idea after all.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, we shall require the private sector to modernise the underground's infrastructure as soon as possible. That will entail a given amount of Government subsidy, the amount to be tested in the market. That subsidy will be recycled from the privatisation proceeds that we receive. If, as we expect, there are proceeds left over, the majority will go to additional investment in London Underground or for other transport investment. The message to Londoners is this: mind the gap between what we offer for their underground and what the Labour party does not offer.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who oppose the privatisation of London Underground must explain why it should be an exception from a philosophy that has been such a success not only in this country but throughout the world? Does he further agree that those who in the final days of the Greater London council poured public money into fares subsidy rather than investment will find it difficult to make that case?

Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It is true that, in the 1970s, resources did not go into catching up with the backlog but into keeping fares down. It is that backlog that we are trying to deal with. We have got it down from £2 billion to £1.2 billion over the past 10 years. I want to make faster progress with clearing that backlog. I believe that privatisation in the way that I have outlined is the key to that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Secretary of State recall that his predecessor, at the beginning of rail privatisation, told the House that there would be no hiatus in investment? We have had four years of virtually no investment in our railways. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?] Up to now. The Secretary of State said that he expected the shortfall in investment to be made good over five years. If we take British Rail as an example, London Underground could be short of essential investment up to the millennium. That could leave the system in a state of disrepair, with services being cancelled and safety compromised.
Surely he understands that the huge asset value of London Underground means that there are other options for raising the money necessary to bring it up to a decent modern metro standard. Surely he sees the sense of allowing it to use its assets as a resource to borrow money and get the investment that it desperately needs now to give Londoners an underground system in which they can again take pride.

Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman wants to outline a conventional approach of increasing public expenditure funded by increased borrowing or higher taxation, he should come into the open and do so. He is wrong about investment. In real terms, investment is 50 per cent. above the level of the 1980s, and twice the level of the 1970s. On top of that, the Jubilee line extension is due to be completed in March next year. On current investment, this year's settlement left provision for the LT core business in 1997–98 unchanged. With private finance investment, total investment in the core business over the next three years should total around £1.5 billion. That compares with London Underground's estimate that £350 million needs to be spent each year on average to prevent the tube's backlog from getting larger. That puts the matter into better perspective.

Dame Angela Rumbold: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement? After many years of trying to improve London Underground, those of us who live in London and use it all the time will welcome the opportunity for investment in London Underground continuing year on year rather than having to be considered annually. That has been one reason why it has been so difficult to plan and improve investment in London Underground. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that users of the Northern line, which culminates in my constituency, can look forward at long last to a programme that will improve both the stations and the running of that line so that they can get to and from their work comfortably, on time and at ease with the whole programme?

Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend is right. London Underground wants stability and confidence of funding for its long-term programme so that it can have a strategic approach. So long as it remains in the public sector, under whatever Government, it will be subject to the annual bids and counter-bids of the public expenditure round. Putting it outside the public sector guarantees it continuity of funding.
My right hon. Friend will know that new trains for the Northern line are on the way. As I outlined in my statement, it is my ambition that, within five years of privatisation, the backlog will have been removed. I have heard no other scenario that achieves that objective in that time scale.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Secretary of State agree that the unhappy, packed travellers who are increasingly jammed in on an unsafe and ancient system will understand that his proposal is not a means of acquiring new investment, or of changing the savage cuts that he has imposed this year, which have put back safety measures like the replacement of escalators for at least two years, but a simple commitment to a brutal transference of taxpayers' assets at well below their worth? As with rail privatisation, large sums of money will go to accountants, estate agents and lawyers, without a penny going into a new rail system.

Sir George Young: What we have not heard so far from the Opposition is an alternative strategy for getting the necessary resources to drive up the quality and quantity of investment in the London underground. The Opposition are unable to match the offer that I have put before the House. On the hon. Lady's specific points, there has been no reduction in next year's resources from this Government for London Underground. So, far from being a "brutal" privatisation, it is a user-friendly privatisation with a transparency that we have not had before, with receipts being recycled back into the underground for the benefit of passengers. The hon. Lady's description of that as "brutal" defies belief.

Mr. John MacGregor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's reaction was reminiscent of what they said when rail privatisation was first announced and that, in practice, all their threats and fears have been proved to be wrong? Will it not be the same in this case? Will not they quickly forget the words that they have used today? I agree with my right hon. Friend about capital investment. Given the shadow Chancellor's position and the many demands which Labour Back Benchers would make for other public expenditure if the Labour party ever came to power, is it not clear that there would be no hope of capital investment in London Underground under a Labour Government?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has been around the course before me in respect of British Rail, and I am inspired by his example. Last week we heard Railtrack's statement on its network management strategy for spending sums that would simply have been beyond our reach had the railways remained in the public sector. That is the goal that we want to secure for London Underground. My right hon. Friend is also right to contrast the posturing that we are seeing now with the reaction that we shall see in a few years' time, once we have successfully privatised London Underground. Labour Members will have to eat their words and recognise once again that our privatisation policy was the right approach.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State really suggesting that London Underground will be sold off and that the receipts from privatisation will go back into London Underground, thus enhancing the value of the undertaking to the private owner? Is it not rather like me selling my house to the Secretary of State and then giving him the receipts of the sale to improve the house? It is like a burglar breaking in and then being given the compensation that the victim receives from the insurance company. Where is the economic model and sense in such a proposal?
When the Secretary of State sets his mind to getting the value of London Underground, will he take into account the enormous redevelopment value of the underground stations throughout the capital city? Lastly, will he tell us which other capital city with a metro system like ours has put it into private ownership?

Sir George Young: This Government are happy to lead the world in their policy on privatisation, and I am confident that others will follow us in our privatisation of London Underground, as they have followed us in privatisation of other state-owned industries. I did not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. Tony Banks: No, because there is none.

Sir George Young: Let me try to explain to him that the London Underground has value as a business, from two sources, and privatisation will crystallise that value. First, London Underground is already making an operating surplus, which covers part of the investment programme. London Transport expects the operating surplus to grow substantially. Secondly, a privatised underground will be much more efficient, which will result in better operating efficiency, better marketing and the more commercial use of property assets. Privatisation will, therefore, accelerate the Underground's progress towards self-sufficiency and help to unlock the value of the undertaking, thereby generating the receipts to attack the backlog.

Mr. Steve Norris: Having had a direct responsibility for London Underground for nearly five years, may I place on record my warm appreciation of the work of the management of the Underground, who have done a huge amount to increase the efficiency of the system? I assure my right hon. Friend that they are the first to point out that, even with those efforts, it has not been enough. There is a backlog, despite levels of Government investment of the order of six or seven times those under Labour.
If my right hon. Friend accepts that fare payers cannot be asked for limitless additional revenue and that taxpayers are already paying a record amount, does he agree that it would appear utterly perverse for purely ideological reasons to deny the Underground the substantial billions of extra investment that a privatisation could unlock? Is it not clear that the position in which the Labour party has put itself is laughable and perverse, and that the only losers by the adoption of such a policy would be the people of London, who will see through the sterility of Labour's argument?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The dogma comes entirely from Opposition Members. I draw their attention to a leader in The Independent on 29 January 1997, headed "Privatisation should be pragmatic, not dogmatic". That leader advocates the privatisation of London Underground.
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work of Peter Ford and his team, which I recognised in my statement, as I do now. I hope that, depending on which structure we choose, there will be opportunities for employee investment in a new structure. My hon. Friend again reminds the House to mind the gap—the gap between what we have put on the table for London Underground and what the Opposition have failed to provide to match it.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Can the Minister explain the gap between his predecessor's promise to the House of Commons in 1984, when the Conservative Government passed legislation to take London Transport out of the hands of the Greater London council, that that was being done to tackle the gap in investment and end under-investment in the tube, and what he says 13 years later—that there is still under-investment in the tube?
Does the Minister recall that, in each of the three years of the Labour administration from 1981 to 1984, when London Transport was taken over by the Government, we made proposals for a major programme of investment in the London tube, and that each year the Conservative

Government vetoed them? Those proposals included the proposal to build the Jubilee line, which would have been working for the past eight years if the Conservative Government had not vetoed it. Why should Londoners believe the Conservatives now when they were lied to in 1984?
Will the Secretary of State get in touch with Sir Horace Cutler, the leader of the Tory group on the GLC in the mid-1970s, who commissioned an internal report for the Tory group on the potential for privatising the tube, and decided not to proceed with the proposal when that report pointed out that the only way in which the tube could be privatised would be to decimate off-peak services and reduce them to no more than two trains an hour?

Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard the commitment that I gave about services. That deals with the scare story at the end of his remarks. Let me give some figures, not from my Government but from his Government, to contrast our commitment to investment in London Underground. Core investment last year, excluding private finance, was more than three times as high in real terms as in 1979. At today's prices, core investment in 1979 was £172 million, compared with £576 million in 1995–96. Those statistics give the true story about commitment to London Underground.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On the history of the matter, is it not true that, when the GLC controlled London Underground, it put political placemen on the board, held board meetings that went on hour after hour, and had virtually no capital programmes? I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. It is good for passengers, and makes economic, financial and political sense. The only people for whom it is bad are the Labour Opposition, who will have to explain to transport correspondents, political correspondents and passengers how they will achieve the levels of capital investment now promised to create a modern underground system.

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his usual succinct way, he has put his finger on the key issues that will be of concern to Londoners between now and May.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question of fact? What figures does the Department of Transport have for the repair of all the aging Victorian tunnels—many of which are suffering deterioration—at the same time? There are those who are expert in stone who say that such structures do not last for ever, and that difficulties in tunnel maintenance will come together on a major scale. What figures are available to the Department of Transport?

Sir George Young: The principal figures available to my Department are those that have been supplied by London Underground, whose best estimate of the extent of the current backlog is £1.2 billion.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key consideration for my constituents who use the London underground regularly is the future quality and frequency of service? My right hon. Friend will have noted that the undertakings that he has given should be backed up when the privatizations


take place. Is it not the case that any alternative must be demonstrated to have money behind it? If the Government still have their hands on the assets, private business men will not want to go near any investment programme, as they know what will happen halfway down the line when the Government pull out, as the Opposition would do if they were in power?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. I gave guarantees on service levels. I made it clear that the private sector will be required to provide a guaranteed level of service, broadly safeguarding the existing level of provision, and that there will be an independent regulatory authority supervising the privatised underground, independent of the train operators, which will agree to changes in service levels only after carefully considering the benefits for passengers. That is a wholly new safeguard.

Mr. Keith Hill: May I remind the Secretary of State that it was the Labour Government who opened Hatton Cross station, the three Heathrow stations and also the Jubilee line, which was the last major programme of underground construction in London? Which of the uneconomic services—I think I quote him correctly—does he expect to be cut under privatisation?

Sir George Young: I made no reference to any uneconomic services being cut; on the contrary, I made it clear that there would be guarantees based broadly on the current level of provision. I am interested in more provision. That is why we are investing in the Jubilee line extension—some £2 billion. That is why we are investing in the Croydon tramlink. That is why we are investing in Thameslink 2000. That is why we are building the channel tunnel rail link through Stratford into St. Pancras. That is why I welcome the Heathrow express. There has not been such a commitment to investment in the public sector transport network in London for many, many years.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will recall that London Underground asks the Government for £700 million every year, which is the sum that it needs to produce a truly modern metro. It is obvious that his solution is the only one that will work properly. Given the financial demands of health, education and law and order, there is no way in which taxpayers could be expected to produce £700 million for the London underground. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's analysis of service needs is totally hollow? No private sector investor would produce money for collapsing embankments and tunnels when there was no cash stream.

Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. I hope that London Underground, London First and other organisations that advocate more Government investment in the underground will welcome the initiative that I have outlined today. I also agree with my hon. Friend's second point.

Mr. John Fraser: Despite what the Secretary of State said in his opening statement, is he aware that a brand new Victoria line was constructed to Brixton in my constituency under a Labour Government in the 1960s? That line, which would never have been constructed by a profit-motivated privatised institution,

now forms an indispensable part of London's transport system. Is it significant that the Secretary of State's 10 points contain nothing about the construction of new underground lines and concentrate entirely on shoring up existing structures? Where will new structures for the underground come from?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Jubilee line extension is being built. It is a £2 billion investment, and will be opened next year. I mentioned a number of other major investments in public transport in London in response to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—such as the Croydon tramlink, which is not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).
At the beginning of my statement, I explained that our approach to railway privatisation proved that it was possible to construct new lines with a privatised industry. That is how the channel tunnel rail link is being built. The new lines that the hon. Gentleman and I want to see will be more likely to progress if we can move the industry into the private sector.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for a first-class underground system that will benefit all Londoners lies with moving it into the private sector and away from political control? Private capital—without limit, if that is viable—would benefit everyone. It is obvious that there is nothing new about new Labour: it is still old Labour, which lives for nationalisation and opposes anything to do with the private sector.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has summarised my views exactly, both on the right approach to the future of London Underground and on the Opposition's attitude to my policy. It is only a matter of time before they amend their views.

Mr. Clive Soley: There is a whiff of creative accountancy about the Secretary of State's statement which must be explained. If the travelcard is to stay the same and be interchangeable between the various companies that the Secretary of State must envisage, if the concessionary fare system is to remain, if services are to be broadly as they are today, and if prices are to be cut, where will the competition come from—unless it is based on a very cheap sale which, by its nature, must be short-lived?

Sir George Young: If we went down the franchising route, there would be an opportunity for competition among potential franchisees—as we have seen with British Rail. If we opted for privatising the organisation as a whole, there would an opportunity for bodies to bid in competition for it. If we opted for share flotation, there would be an opportunity to fix a price that maximised the value to taxpayers. There are many ways of introducing competition. I ask the hon. Gentleman: what sort of competition is there at present?

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the GLC not only cut London Underground's services savagely in the early 1980s, but doubled the fares in a single year? We do not need any lessons on underground service provision and fares from


the Labour party. Its only proposal for London Underground is to do nothing. We must have some action. My constituents must have a better service: they need an escalator at Greenford station, better standards at Northolt station and improvements at Ealing Broadway station. That work will occur as a result of my hon. Friend's statement, and I support it.

Sir George Young: The largest single increase that I have been able to find took place between 1975 and 1976—an increase of some 25 per cent. in real terms. The House will remember that, when we approached the privatisation of British Telecom, there were many forecasts that telephone kiosks either would not work or would be closed. We have heard a similar propaganda campaign today. It was not true then. It is not true today.

Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that, between now and the general election, not one single penny of Government money will be spent on advisers, consultants, and all the trappings of even starting to look at the scheme? Does he agree that the voters of London should be given a choice in this matter, and that that will happen on general election day?

Sir George Young: Certainly not. I made it clear in my statement that I propose to consult a large number of organisations that have an interest in this policy. I see no reason why the potential benefits to Londoners should be delayed for a single day.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he has announced today an enormous opportunity for London as a vibrant and successful city, and an opportunity for a much better rail service for all our constituents who use it regularly? Was not he right to say that the hysterical reaction from the Labour party spokesman is entirely in line with everything that the Labour party has said about every single privatisation, not just rail privatisation? Labour told us that British Telecom would have to close all its telephone boxes, and that British Airways would not be able to fly to regional airports. They have been wrong every time, and Londoners simply will not believe them this time.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. The House will remember that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is now the Opposition Chief Whip, said that British Airways
will be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 125.]
That is the sort of hysterical pronouncement that we have grown used to from Opposition Members when we propose the privatisation of something in the transport industry.

Ms Margaret Hodge: How much money has the Secretary of State set aside for financial and technical advice? Advice on privatising British Rail cost the British taxpayer £450 million. How much will it cost to privatise London Underground? What expenditure has been cut? The Secretary of State, both in this job and in his former job, was a keen advocate of the private finance initiative.

On the privatisation that he announced today, is he saying that his Government have failed to bring forward constructive private finance initiatives that would ensure proper investment in London's underground services?

Sir George Young: No expenditure has been cut to take forward the policies that I have just outlined. Any expenditure on advisers is a good investment if it secures an industry, if it drives up the quality of services, and if it improves its investment record and eliminates the investment backlog.
No Administration has taken the PFI forward with greater enthusiasm than this one. There are a number of private finance initiatives being advanced within London Underground, but as the chairman of London Underground made clear last week to the Transport Select Committee, the PFI cannot reach all the investment backlog. Some of the work cannot be completed under a PFI deal. Whatever progress is made with the PFI, we are still left with an industry in the public sector that is subject to all the public expenditure constraints of any other nationalised industry. Privatisation addresses both those problems.

Mr. David Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents will judge his proposals by whether they work in practice: for example, by bringing forward the much-needed upgrade of Metropolitan line infrastructure; by assisting the cross-rail project to go ahead; and by ensuring that, when my constituents get to Baker street or Marylebone, the escalators work? Will he confirm that the purpose of his proposals is to allow capital investment to take place to provide the improvement in service that my constituents seek?

Sir George Young: On the latter point, the answer is, of course, yes. I hope that everybody will judge the proposals on their merits. It is not some dogmatic proposal. We have looked at London Underground. We have asked ourselves what its needs are. We have come up with a tailor-made package that addresses the problems of London Underground. That is not dogma, but common sense.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Have not the Government run down the London underground in the years leading up to this statement? The Minister's so-called commitments would not be worth the paper they are written on if the Tories got a dreaded fifth term. When the election was out of the way, the Chancellor would get his hands on the money and the Secretary of State would move on. The proposals would cost London passengers and taxpayers dearly. Have not the Tories shown by this privatisation proposal that they have given up on London commuters altogether?

Sir George Young: The people who have given up are those who have failed to produce an alternative scenario that provides the benefits to Londoners that I have outlined. We have not neglected investment in London Underground. I shall not repeat the figures, because I have already quoted them twice, but they show a dramatic increase in investment in the core network between the 1970s and 1980s and now.

Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that I have instigated more


Adjournment debates calling for increased investment in London Underground than any other hon. Member. London Underground was starved of cash when it was under the control of a strategic authority for London May I welcome the statement, which will lead to increased investment to complement the £430 million PFI initiative for the Northern line, and the £25 million investment at the Morden and Golders Green depots? I thank my right hon. Friend for giving Londoners the assurances on concessionary fares schemes, quality of service and maximum fares for which I asked on 10 February.

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate of London Transport, and I am delighted to have his support. He may have secured more Adjournment debates on London transport than anyone else, but I have answered more Adjournment debates than anyone else.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it true that last year £1,229 million of debt was written off when British Rail assets were transferred to Railtrack? Why did the Secretary of State's list of 10 points not include debt write-off? In all the other privatisations, billions of pounds of debt was written off so that the privatised companies could start work with a clean sheet of paper.

Sir George Young: London Underground has no debt.

Lady Olga Maitland: Having travelled on the London underground all my life, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this important step in privatising the service. Will he confirm that it will provide an excellent opportunity to recycle receipts into new services, such as the extension of the Northern line from Morden to Sutton? Does he agree that only with such new investment and privatisation can we pave the way for new services and provide badly needed resources, which the Labour party would deny London Underground?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend draws attention to an aspect of the announcement that has not featured much in this question and answer session. The first call on the privatisation receipts will be the backlog that needs to be tackled. After that, we anticipate a surplus, the majority of which will be put back into transport in London and outside. People will be able to bid for projects, such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that that additional feature of privatisation will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Did I understand the Secretary of State to promise that a privatised underground will be a financial triumph, just as the channel tunnel was? Will he make it clear what he is saying about services, because he keeps using the word "broadly"? Will the level of service be guaranteed? Will it at least be at the present level?

Sir George Young: The answer is yes, broadly. We shall ensure that the private sector will be required to provide a guaranteed level of service that broadly safeguards the existing level of provision. There must be an element of flexibility, but the regulatory authority that will supervise the underground, which will be

independent of the train operators, will agree to changes in service levels only after carefully considering the benefits to passengers. That safeguard does not exist now.

Mr. David Winnick: Given that there are, at the most, nine weeks to go until the general election and six until the election campaign, does the Secretary of State realise how irresponsible it would be to spend public money on advisers, when there is every indication that the scheme will never go ahead? Will the right hon. Gentleman think again, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) rightly suggested—let the people of London decide at the election? To use public money in the way that he intends would be totally irresponsible, and could not be justified.

Sir George Young: The people of London will, of course, decide, and I hope that their decision will be influenced by our plans for London Underground. I hope that they will contrast what I have outlined this afternoon with the complete absence of any comparable strategy from any other party. As for making progress with the policy, I see no reason to delay the progress that I want to make. I believe that it will have real benefits for Londoners, and I want to get on with it as fast as I can.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What is London Underground's current asset value? Will it be possible to sell it at less than its asset value? Will there be a limit to the profit that can be made on the on-sale of any of the assets? Why does the Secretary of State not contemplate, as one option, retaining public ownership while allowing London Underground to borrow entirely as it would wish in the private markets? I understand that London Transport would be perfectly happy for it to do that.

Sir George Young: If we did that, it would simply score as public borrowing or public expenditure. There is no way of using creative accounting to solve the problem. As for the proceeds from this privatisation, as with other privatisations, the Government are not making an estimate of those in advance.

Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for trying to intervene earlier, but the matter that I wished to raise related to the statement.
I seek your advice in regard to the conventions of the House. Just over a week ago, the Leader of the Opposition instigated a motion of censure against my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When the likely result of the vote became known, the Leader of the Opposition ran from the Chamber and hid behind his spin doctors in his room behind your Chair.
This afternoon, in the full glare of the television cameras and in a public performance, the Leader of the Opposition asked three questions relating to the future of London Underground; yet, when the statement was made, he saw fit to leave the Chamber and not listen to the answers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And Major did?

Mr. Gale: With great respect, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knew the answers. The Leader of the Opposition clearly did not.
My question to you is this, Madam Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that those who ask questions stay to listen to the answers? Whether or not the Leader of the Opposition has the courage to stay and listen to answers that he might not like, should he not have the courtesy to do so?

Madam Speaker: This is rather a political argument. The Opposition have their own shadow Ministers to ask questions of the Secretary of State.
As for convention, may I make this point? This morning, I heard the Secretary of State say on the radio that he had a statement to make to the House today, and that he would not divulge what was in it. I applauded that. He did go on a little to say what would be in it—but, if we are speaking of conventions, I have always applauded Secretaries of State who say, "Yes, I have a statement to make, but it will be made to the House of Commons first."
As for Leaders of the Opposition, I do not know where they sit on these matters. I do not know whether they want to watch the television in their room, or stay on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Ministerial gesticulation from a sedentary position, however well intentioned, is no substitute for clear statements in Hansard. Will you give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say whether the £1.2 billion to which he referred covers simply tunnels, or a good deal else?

Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I will see whether I can obtain an estimate from London Underground of the proportion of the total backlog that relates to tunnels.

Madam Speaker: I think that it would be better to be absolutely clear, so that other hon. Members also know the answer, and to place a question on the Order Paper. I think that that would be very helpful.

BILL PRESENTED

GREAT APES (PROHIBITION OF EXPERIMENTS)

Mr. Tony Banks, supported by Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Phil Gallie, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Ken Livingstone, presented a Bill to prohibit certain experimental or scientific procedures being conducted on great apes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 115].

POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSIONS BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(1) (Second reading committees),

That the Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Coe.]

Question agreed to.

Local Government (Conduct of Officers)

Mr. Chris Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enhance the independence and professional status of senior local government officers by providing for a statutory code of conduct requiring that their advice and actions be politically impartial, and to establish an independent tribunal with authority to investigate complaints made by the public and enforce the code as required, and related matters.
The Bill has the objective of enhancing the professional status and protecting the independence of senior local government officers. Let me tell the House why the Bill is necessary.
The work of senior local government officers is of great importance to the communities that we serve. It is the good fortune of many of us to work with officers of a very high calibre. Their role is, of course, different from that of their civil service counterparts. Chief officers do not serve council leaders as permanent secretaries serve Ministers. Instead they are the servants of the entire council: of the controlling party and of the opposition parties alike. They must also be accountable to some extent to the public for the services that they provide and administer.
Chief officers have a duty to give their professional advice impartially, openly and without bias to each and every councillor. It is up to the elected representatives then to make the political judgments, accepting or rejecting the advice as they see fit. The House has recognised that, if the independence of local government officers is not to be compromised, they must be separate and removed from party politics. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 forbids them from serving in a political capacity on another council. Although they may be members of a political party, they may not hold posts within it.
The Local Government Management Board has published a code of conduct, but it is not statutory and need not even be accepted by a local authority, let alone enforced. Existing provisions are not sufficient to prevent the insidious subversion of officers' independence in councils that are run by one party, of whatever political persuasion, for a great length of time.
Some 70 councils have been run by just one party since their inception in 1974. Thanks to the collapse of the Conservatives in local government, they are mostly Labour-run authorities by a factor of some four to one and they include 22 metropolitan districts and London boroughs. A short distance from my home, I think on the one side of the Pennines of Manchester, Salford and Wigan and on the other of Barnsley, Wakefield and the recently notorious Doncaster.
The party in control can of course be said to command the support of the electorate, but, however good the reasons, where one party is in control for a great length of time, the checks and balances of the democratic process are greatly eroded. The will of the controlling party and the will of the council may all too easily come to be viewed as one and the same thing. There is then an ever present risk that officers will be put under pressure to subordinate their independent judgment to that of the political party in control.
At its most vile, I have seen that pressure applied by militant Labour councillors in Liverpool when they gained control in 1983. The atmosphere of a previously balanced and open council was rapidly transformed. Officers were sworn at and ridiculed in public committee meetings by their new political masters. They were physically threatened, I understand, in private. The stress placed on them was immense, and it contributed to the premature death of one at least, whom, I had known and worked with. Many others sought escape by way of early retirement.
That was an extreme example. Much more common is the subtle pressure placed on senior officers because their careers depend on the good will of the politicians who influence the appointments committees, or the chief executive, who may have misplaced loyalties. How can impartial professional judgment be given if it has been privately indicated that an impartial view is not what is required?
A friendly relationship between councillors and officers is of course fine, but each needs to know their role and their place. That is why the growth of what might be termed "a culture of familiarity" at the highest levels can be invidious. A council leader with firm control over the majority group works alongside a chief executive for, say, 20 years. Over the years, they help each other out of scrapes. The one supports the other to fend off criticism. It is not a conspiracy, just human nature, but the divisions between politician and officer are gradually bridged in ways that are in the interests neither of democracy nor of the public good.
The Audit Commission, for example, may publish performance indicators that might prove embarrassing to the administration. The chief executive decides not to place them on the committee agenda for consideration by councillors. The council leader backs him up. It is a matter of, "You scratch my back; I'll scratch yours." Public debate is avoided. Embarrassment is saved all round. At the worst, there is a concentration of power, which is exercised arrogantly and influences officers at every level of the structure. They know that they must bite their tongues and blow no whistles.
The scandals in Doncaster and Westminster exposed by the district auditor occurred only because, at some point, senior officers turned a blind eye to the unacceptable behaviour of some councillors or allowed them to pursue policies of dubious legality. I do not believe that that could have happened if officers had not been expected to toe the leadership's line or risk damage to their careers by speaking out.
I regard the doctoring of officers' reports as particularly malign. When proposals for new legislation are introduced in the House, hon. Members know that many of them have been drafted by civil servants. The Minister who presents the legislation, however, will rightly defend it as his own. The practice can be quite different in local government. A chief officer's report and recommendation to a council committee supposedly represent his or her independent professional opinion, and the controlling party often will make the point that the council pays a great deal of money to employ the person for that advice. In practice, however, the so-called "independent" report may have been politically influenced before it reaches the council, leaving the decision-making process tainted and corrupted.
In such cases, the officer's professional judgment reflects nothing more than the wishes of the controlling party or of its leadership. It is a dishonest game of backroom political manipulation—which councillors detached from the leadership may suspect but can rarely prove. Opposition councillors are left complaining of political bias, but they are powerless to act. The public lose confidence in democracy and feel that there is no chance to redress their complaints. To whom could they appeal? The council's monitoring officer is perhaps the chief executive or someone who answers to him. Will he investigate complaints about himself? A behind-the-scenes fix may not necessarily be maladministration, which would rule out the intervention of the ombudsman. Judicial review is possible, but, in most cases, it is too expensive and cumbersome.
I believe that the vast majority of local government officers profoundly resent being dragged into the political process and being told privately—by a politician or a chief executive with misplaced loyalties—what they must say and write when reporting to the council.
My Bill would provide good officers with a cloak of protection. It would establish a strong and legally binding code that places on officers a duty to serve the council as a whole and to exercise their judgment free from partisan influence. It would also forbid discrimination in any aspect of their employment on partisan grounds.
The code would allow an officer to remind councillors or even a chief executive that it is against the law to require officers to protect the interests of one particular group of councillors, or for them to be influenced by anything other than their own professional judgment when preparing reports for the council. The Bill would also provide the code of conduct with some real teeth. It would establish a tribunal with staff who would have the power to investigate complaints made by officers, councillors or members of the public. The tribunal could publish reports requiring that the council demonstrates that necessary disciplinary action has been taken or recommending the disqualification of councillors identified as having put political pressure on an officer.
In practice, I hope and believe that the work of such a tribunal would be minimal. The mere fact of its establishment and the creation of a new code would help to change the nature of local government and allow a breath of fresh air to penetrate some of its more odorous recesses. Decisions affecting local communities should be taken openly and publicly by elected representatives of the community in council chambers and in committee rooms, not in back-room meetings held discreetly in private offices in the civic centre or town hall.
The measures proposed in my Bill would allow local government officers to take pride not only in their professionalism but in their independence. The measures will raise the standard of informed debate on important issues affecting local communities, and improve the quality of decision taking. By more clearly defining the space between the roles—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chris Davies, Mr. David Bendel, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. David Chidgey, Mr. David Alton, Ms Liz Lynne and Mr. Simon Hughes.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONDUCT OF OFFICERS)

Mr. Chris Davies accordingly presented a Bill to enhance the independence and professional status of senior local government officers by providing for a statutory code of conduct requiring that their advice and actions be politically impartial, and to establish an independent tribunal with authority to investigate complaints made by the public and enforce the code as required, and related matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May, and to be printed [Bill 116].

Orders of the Day — Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: Fourth report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 (HC 196) on compensation recovery and the Government's response thereto (Cm 2997.]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that victims get proper compensation, those responsible for causing injury pay that compensation and the taxpayer neither subsidises the negligence of others nor doubly compensates victims. The full package of reforms will save the taxpayer an extra £50 million a year.
The Bill deals with a less well-known part of the social security system. Nevertheless, it is an important reform because it brings the process of benefit recovery into line with a long-standing and widely agreed principle.
People suffering injury, accident or disease may sometimes receive compensation from a third party, such as an insurer. They may also, independently of that, receive social security benefits to meet their needs for lost income, or to meet extra care needs. So they could be entitled to two lots of money for the same needs. Benefit recovery prevents that, by recouping benefits paid from public funds. The policy is founded on the principle that an individual should not receive double provision to meet the same need.
Although that long-standing common law principle pre-dates the modern welfare state, Sir William Beveridge articulated it clearly in his historic report, "Social Insurance and Allied Services", published in 1942:
An injured person should not have the same need met twice over. He should get benefit at once without prejudice to any alternative remedy, but if the remedy proves in fact to be available he should not in the end get more from two sources together than he would have got from one alone.
From 1948, double compensation was prevented by recovering benefits from compensation, but compensation recovery was an inconsistent business. Compensation was reduced to recover benefits already paid, but the amount deducted differed from benefit to benefit. For some benefits, 50 per cent. was deductible. For others, the full amount paid was brought to account. Compensation could be reduced to reflect the payment of certain benefits for up to five years from the date of the incident. For other benefits, there was no time limit. That inconsistent approach disadvantaged some accident victims.
A key problem with the original rules was that the compensator kept the reduction on account of benefits paid. The taxpayer lost by subsidising the negligence of the person responsible for the accident, injury or disease. In a report produced in 1986, the National Audit Office concluded that it was wrong for public funds to be used to subsidise negligence.
The NAO recommended that the amounts deducted from compensation should be recovered for the taxpayer. Subsequently, the Public Accounts Committee urged the


Government to set up such a scheme. The Government commissioned a review of the relationship between compensation and benefit payments. Following the review, we decided to act.
In 1990, the Government shifted the advantage of recovery from the insurer to the taxpayer. That is the scheme we have now. The compensator deducts from the settlement an amount equal to the benefits that have been paid. He sends that amount to my Department and pays the balance to the victim. If the compensation is £2,500 or less, benefits are not recovered. It is straightforward and it keeps bureaucracy to a minimum. Compared with the previous system, it is also good value for money, and saved the taxpayer more than £130 million last year.
The Select Committee on Social Security played a part in focusing attention on the current scheme, and on ways by which it might be improved. At the beginning of 1995, the Select Committee decided to
inquire into the policy and practice of the compensation recovery unit, and the legislation on which it is based".
It took evidence from my Department and from a range of other interested parties and reported in July 1995. I pay tribute to the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is in his place.
In its unanimous report, the Select Committee reached conclusions about the scheme that are of crucial importance. It stated:
it was right for the Government to shift the advantage of recovery to the taxpayer who lost out to the insurer under the pre-1990 scheme.
It added:
the taxpayer should not be in the business of paying benefit for compensating individuals who have suffered injury or disease for which the courts would hold someone else responsible".
The Government welcomed those conclusions, as they confirmed that we were right to introduce a scheme which has the protection of the taxpayer as one of its primary objectives.
The scheme also has two unintended consequences. The first is that some victims do not get to keep all or indeed any of the compensation intended for their pain and suffering. It arises because compensators pay for proven loss, whereas the state pays for needs. Compensators reduce the amount of compensation that they pay by the total benefit already paid, regardless of what the compensation is for. So the compensation a victim receives for pain and suffering may in some cases be eroded by the recovery of benefits paid for need. A typical scenario would involve someone who is already out of work, perhaps through redundancy, before the onset of a disease caused by his former employment.
While the person is out of work, his income needs are met by state benefits. After a time, a compensation settlement from the former employer is agreed. It might be £15,000, intended to cover his pain and suffering. There would be no compensation for loss of earnings, because the victim was already unemployed, even though the illness would have made continued unemployment likely. The amount paid out in state benefits might have built up to £10,000, so £10,000 of benefit would have to be paid back to the state. The victim would be left with only £5,000—a fraction of the amount intended to cover

his pain and suffering. To any reasonable person, that must seem unfair. The Government agree with the observation in the Social Security Committee's report on benefit recovery:
We cannot accept that the general taxpayer should be reimbursed out of damages awarded for an individual's pain and suffering.
The other unintended consequence concerns the operation of the small payments limit of £2,500. For compensation payments below that limit, benefits are not currently recovered. The intention of the limit is a sensible one: it is to avoid the disproportionate administrative costs of recovering small amounts of benefit from large numbers of small claims. However it also unintentionally creates a loophole, providing incentives for insurers and victims to agree compensation at or below the small payments limit.
One effect is that both the victim and the insurer may gain at the expense of the taxpayer. I can best demonstrate that if hon. Members allow me to lead them through a simple example. Let us suppose that a victim has received £3,000 in state benefits as a consequence of an accident at work. If the compensation agreed were £5,000, the insurer would pay £3,000 to the Department of Social Security and £2,000 to the victim. It would cost the compensator a total of £5,000. If instead the parties agree to compensation of only £2,500, however, the Department gets nothing and the victim gets the full £2,500. So the victim gets £500 more while it costs the compensator £2,500 less than if the settlement had been twice that sum.
Another effect is that the insurer may gain at the expense of both the taxpayer and the victim. A disproportionate number of compensation settlements seem to be pitched at or around the small payments limit of £2,500. That suggests that many victims settle for compensation at less than the true value. We cannot let either of those circumstances continue. The Select Committee concluded that
it was right for the Government to shift the advantage of recovery to the taxpayer who lost out to the insurer under the pre-1990 scheme.
Furthermore, the Select Committee suggested that the Government should recover 100 per cent. of benefits in every claim. To recover all benefits means removing the small payments limit.
The Government published our formal response to the Select Committee report on 2 October 1995. As part of that response, I launched an extensive consultation exercise on the implications of reform along the lines proposed by the Select Committee, which was completed in November 1995. The compliance cost assessment of the Select Committee's proposals was published on 14 February 1996. A further consultation exercise to assess the implications of that assessment followed. The closing date for responses was in April 1996.
All the key interested parties, including insurers, victims' representatives and the Trades Union Congress, were involved. A variety of organisations and individuals responded to the consultation exercise, including those who are now taking a keen interest in the Bill's progress. I am grateful for the constructive approach taken by respondents, particularly the Association of British


Insurers, the Law Society, the TUC, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, and Clydeside Action on Asbestos.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lilley: I do not often get that sort of response from the Opposition Benches, but I welcome it. I had a helpful meeting with John Monks of the TUC. I hope that he, too, found it fruitful.
The consultation revealed a wide consensus for the reform of the scheme, in particular the protection of damages for pain and suffering, although there were differences on the details of how that could best be achieved.
Our proposals offer a full and workable solution. They strike a balance between the views of practitioners and the protection of taxpayers. They place liability on the compensator to repay 100 per cent. of the benefits paid to an injured person in respect of accident, injury or disease. They allow the compensator to reduce compensation payments pound for pound only in respect of corresponding benefits repaid to the Department. That will enable victims of accident, injury or disease to receive full compensation for pain or suffering. Those changes are in the Bill.
I also propose to remove the small payments limit, which is set in regulations as part of the current scheme. However, I intend to retain the power to set a limit in case it should be needed in future. Other measures in the Bill will simplify the appeals system, while still protecting the rights of parties to settlements to challenge benefit recovery decisions.
The anticipated cost to insurers of implementing the new arrangements will be marginal. This area of the Department's work is specialised, and is set against the background of the insurance industry in which premiums for insurance against the sectors concerned exceed £8 billion a year. That is why we commissioned independent consultants to produce a compliance cost assessment. Fifteen major insurers were closely involved, and I should like to place on record our gratitude for their support and for the valuable assistance that they provided.
The cost of operating the new arrangements is likely to be between only £3 million and £7 million a year. The compliance cost assessment estimated that insurers would face increased claims costing between £52 million and £72 million in each year following reform. If passed on to policyholders, the increase in costs is likely to produce only moderate increases in premium rates. The assessment concluded that employers' liability insurance premiums could rise by around 5 per cent. and public liability premiums by around 3 per cent. Motor insurance premiums are expected to rise by no more than 0.5 per cent. We believe that such a rise in premiums will be seen as acceptable, given the protection that the Bill offers to victims and to the taxpayer.
The change that we are making is relatively straightforward, but the Bill may appear long and somewhat complicated. Rather than making piecemeal amendments to the existing statute, the parliamentary draftsman has restated the relevant part of the Social

Security Administration Act 1992 in its entirety. That will make it easier to see the proposed new scheme in the round without constantly having to refer back to a previous Act. Furthermore, if enacted in this form, it should prove easier for practitioners to absorb the changes that we are making. It should also help the scheme to run smoothly in the years following the reform.
Naturally, the Bill contains the necessary amendments to effect an important shift in responsibility for the repayment of benefit, but we have thought it right to disturb as little of the detail of the present scheme as possible. I believe that there is widespread consensus that it works well, and we do not want to put that at risk.
Subject to parliamentary approval, reform of the scheme will take effect from October 1997. Insurers will by then have had a year to prepare. The reforms will apply to cases settled from the date of implementation, including those in the pipe line. That is fair to accident victims. Otherwise, two accident victims in similar circumstances could receive different compensation on the same day simply because their claims were not initiated at the same time.
The Bill will achieve three important objectives. First, it will be fair to victims, allowing them to keep all compensation for pain and suffering. Secondly, it will maintain the principle that individuals do not receive two lots of money to meet the same need. Thirdly, it will be fair to the taxpayer. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Harriet Harman: The Bill was introduced in another place and was the subject of thorough discussion there for more than seven hours. I pay tribute to our noble Friends for their effort in scrutinising the Bill. Important issues were raised and questions answered, so I do not need to go through them again. I shall merely point out that the matters considered included the relevant period for the recovery of benefit, issues of certificates of recoverable benefit, heads of compensation and appeal.
We support the Bill and look forward to seeing it on the statute book. It involves issues of principle and practicalities. If someone is injured and cannot work, the social security system must protect that person, but it is also right that those who are negligent should pay compensation. The state should not be required to pay instead of, or indemnify, an individual or organisation that, through negligence, injures another.
The triangle of the taxpayer, the victim of negligence and the perpetrator of the negligence—or their insurance company—has presented us with problems. The system in operation since 1989 has been confusing and inconsistent, has been unfair to individuals and has discouraged them from making claims. The problem arises when, as a result of an injury, the social security system supports the victim—as is right—but then, sometimes many years later, the victim obtains a sum in compensation from the person who was negligent.
The compensation, or a large part of it, will already have been paid out in social security benefits, so much of the money is owed to the social security system, not the individual. The current system claws back benefits from the total amount of compensation above the limit of £2,500—not only the money awarded for loss of earnings, but that awarded for pain and suffering. The whole of a


compensation payment can be clawed back, and individuals can feel that they have taken on a case for nothing. The Social Security Select Committee, to which I also pay tribute, pointed out that that is revolting to any sense of justice. It is a disincentive to claiming—if the victims end up with nothing, why should they bother to sue?
We should remember that taking legal action is quite an undertaking: it might involve many meetings with lawyers; it might take many years; it might mean being subjected to an allegation of contributory negligence; it might involve having to give evidence in court and having that evidence criticised and challenged; and, without legal aid or the backing of a trade union, it might cost a great deal in legal fees. Many victims of negligence would rather stay away from the whole business, particularly if they stand to gain little from it. However, if they do not sue, the state gets no money back and the perpetrator of the negligence gets off scot free.
It is in the state's interest that the individual should sue. By allowing the individual to keep the compensation for pain and suffering, the Bill goes some way towards ensuring that the victim has an incentive to sue, because that person will keep some of the money won in damages.
That is right in principle. As the Secretary of State said, of course benefits do not compensate for pain and suffering and therefore any sum awarded in compensation for pain and suffering should rightly belong to the individual who has suffered and should not be clawed back by social security.
A wider issue is the human and monetary price of accidents. It is unacceptable that, as we head towards the end of the 20th century, when we know so much about what causes injury and ill health and how to avoid it, accidents and ill health caused by work cost between £11 billion and £16 billion a year, according to the Health and Safety Executive. A number of my hon. Friends will raise issues concerning the shameful neglect of health and safety at work. It is unacceptable that there should be such high tolls of accidents at work and of personal injuries in road traffic accidents; the Department of Transport estimates that road accidents involving personal injury cost £9.5 billion a year.
On behalf of the taxpayer, the Department of Social Security claws back part of the bill for accidents. Even taking into account the £130 million clawed back in compensation for those admitting to or being found guilty of negligence, however, the Department still pays out millions of pounds to maintain those who have lost their income or suffered permanent disability, mostly through injury at work or on the roads.
Prevention is better than compensation. What is needed and is long overdue is a cross-departmental approach to accident prevention. Such issues are all profoundly affected by Government policy. If the Government take insufficient action to cut accidents at work or to make cars and roads safer, the individual suffers and the taxpayer picks up the Bill—yet many such accidents are preventable. It is in the interests of taxpayers and the Department of Social Security, as well as the individual concerned, to challenge other Departments to reach for yet higher safety standards and not simply talk about apportioning the bill for the cost of the accidents.
The Secretary of State should be taking action to ensure that people claim wherever there is good cause of action. Unlike cases of medical negligence, where there is a very

low success rate and it is very difficult to predict which cases are likely to be successful, cases of traffic and work accidents are often very clear. According to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, more than 90 per cent of such cases, where there has been advice that there is a good cause of action, succeed.
How can the Secretary of State encourage justified claims? As I have said, it is in the interests of the individual and the taxpayer—and it penalises those who have been negligent—that he should do so. I should like to ask some questions to which the Under-Secretary could respond in his winding-up speech.
Has the Secretary of State considered whether he could do more to provide information about making a claim for personal injury? What information do benefit offices have and what information do they give people about the possibility of claiming for personal injury? Has the Secretary of State considered ensuring that information on claiming is given to all those who suffer injury at work or in traffic accidents? Has he considered whether such information could be available in general practitioners' surgeries and hospitals, where it could be picked up by a relative?
Only one in three victims of accidents make a claim for compensation. Although, clearly, not all accidents are a result of negligence, it is clear that many more than one in three are the result of it. Clearly, good cases are being dropped because the individual feels that there is no incentive to sue. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) wrote to the Secretary of State on 20 February about a constituent of his who has a very good case but is not bothering to sue because it is not felt to be worth while. A problem has clearly been identified. Encouraging claims contributes to public policy objectives in two ways: it holds to account and penalises those who have been negligent, and therefore acts as a deterrent; and it recoups money on behalf of the taxpayer.
As well as considering giving more information to claimants, have the Government ever considered piloting a system—I hope that, if he is bothering to listen, the Under-Secretary will respond on this point—in which legal aid rules have additional flexibility for people claiming where the DSS will be the ultimate beneficiary? The difficulty lies where there is a good claim and the DSS has a big interest in it being made but the person concerned is not eligible for legal aid.
As I have said, although many claims have a good chance of success, they are not proceeded with because the plaintiff does not qualify for legal aid or, in the case of injury at work, have the legal backing of a trade union, and is not prepared to use his or her own money for a case where he or she sees little benefit. In its compliance cost assessment, Price Waterhouse estimated that every 1 per cent. increase in successful claims for personal injury—bearing it in mind that there is a 90 per cent. success rate—would save £21 million for the DSS in recoverable benefits.
Although the measures in the Bill go some way towards solving the problem, how can further progress be made? How do we deal with a situation in which the one who stands to gain—the DSS—has no locus standi as the plaintiff, and the person with locus standi as the plaintiff does not stand to gain? The pain and suffering exemption goes only some way towards dealing with that problem.


There is a strong argument for the DSS looking for further action to ensure that claims that are likely to be successful are pursued.
Has the Secretary of State considered, for example, that, with the agreement of the plaintiff, the DSS could step into the plaintiff's shoes? Has he considered that, in some cases, the DSS could indemnify individuals against costs? Those proposals would bear looking at. They would have to be evaluated, and might even need to be piloted, but cases are clearly being dropped and the exemption for pain and suffering goes only part of the way towards solving the problem.
In certain cases, the DSS could provide funding to support legal action; it could have its own fund to receive payments of compensation to provide further support for legal action. Those are only proposals, but they should be looked at, since we still have not found our way out of the triangle of different interests.
By abolishing the £2,500 limit and allowing victims to keep compensation for pain and suffering, the Bill makes a vast improvement. It brings greater fairness to individuals and the taxpayer—but it is only a start. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money could be saved by more imaginative and purposeful cross-departmental work to prevent accidents at work and on the road and by supporting those involved in accidents and encouraging them to pursue justified personal injury claims.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Coming from a background of industry, especially the mining industry, as you do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I spent 26 years underground—I do not consider people concerned with the Bill to be numbers. They are colleagues, friends, and even relations. Many have passed away. When such people come to my surgeries, the disgust and anger expressed—especially by friends and loved ones—about the clawback makes me very angry, too.
The effects of an industrial disease or injury, especially of pneumoconiosis, asbestosis and mesothelioma, on the victim and his family are astronomical. The loss of income as a result of injury in employment immediately affects not only the person but his family. The disabling effect on the individual is traumatic. Even an individual's character alters—sometimes not for the better—because he or she can no longer attend to many of the things that used to be done normally, such as pouring a cup of tea or going to the toilet.
Mental anxiety and guilt are felt when the victims blame themselves for their predicament. We cannot compensate those people or their families for the sadness caused. It is said that to give one's life for one's friend is the greatest sacrifice. To give one's life and health for industry is, in my opinion, never compensated for properly and never can be. However, as a society, we must make life tolerable for victims and compensate them financially at least.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) mentioned the difficulty of claiming compensation. An ill person faces the ordeal of clinical examinations and cross-examination in court—in other words, humiliation from start to finish. If, because of delays, all the

settlement is recovered by the Government, why bother? People ask me why they should go through the traumatic experience of appearing in court and being criticised and humiliated. As the Secretary of State admitted, if the settlement does not exceed the clawback amount, the taxpayer has to foot the bill, and the firm that is liable can walk away scot free. The limit of £2,500 has caused people to give up on their genuine claims, because they fear losing even that pittance. It is a pittance in comparison with a life.
There are exemptions to the £2,500 limit. The National Coal Board—later British Coal—had a pneumoconiosis scheme, which was exempt. The hearing loss agreement, the criminal justice compensation scheme and many others do not have the compensation awarded clawed back. Exemption has been sought for asbestos cases, especially mesothelioma. If the Bill comes into force with immediate effect, and the retrospectivity provisions are retained, asbestos cases may be more proactively pursued by the persons responsible for causing the diseases and their insurers, but that will not help mesothelioma sufferers.
Mesothelioma is a category of asbestos damage that is readily diagnosed and cannot be confused with other conditions. The mean time of survival is 44 weeks from the date of diagnosis, and earlier diagnosis is extremely difficult. It therefore has a clearly defined period from diagnosis to death. It is a virulent form of asbestos disease that causes the person to become grossly disabled and bedridden in a short time. It is also notoriously painful, needing substantial administration of pain-killing drugs, including morphine. Against that background, cases have to be progressed with all the difficulties referred to in the Social Security Committee report, in paragraph 54 and the quotation from the Minister.
The Government have recognised the urgency of cases of mesothelioma by dispensing with the period of 90 days for the award of industrial disablement benefit. They have therefore recognised the particular difficulties of the disease and the need for exemption. If the Government allow those responsible for such injuries to seek set-off under clause 8 or to apply for review and appeals—all of which cannot be determined within the mean time of survival—they will cause delays in progressing such cases.
Any obstacle to progressing the cases should be removed. Given the limited survival time, in some cases benefit is awarded only shortly before death, and the Government would be in the absurd and harsh situation of giving benefit and taking it away at the same time or shortly afterwards. The benefit would invariably be taken away from the widow or widower and the deceased's estate. Although the benefit might be substantial for the mesothelioma sufferer or his estate, the cost to the taxpayer would be negligible.
I hope that the provisions on retrospection will be taken into account. The Bill fails to address an absurdity, in clause 3, that occurs in the provisions on appeals, but the problem may be dealt with through regulation. As matters stand at present, judgment may be made in favour of the injured person. If an appeal is not made on the judgment, the consequent payment is subject to compensation recovery unit recoupment. If an appeal is made, additional CRU benefit accumulates after the judgment. Appeals can also take some time—in many cases, as long as, if not longer than, the original action. I ask that benefit be clawed back only for the period up to the original judgment.
The Bill will redress in part the gross injustice of the present regulations that recoup money from victims' damages, but some principles and issues will not be satisfactorily resolved by it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, the Bill is a beginning, not the end, in solving the problem.

Ms Liz Lynne: The Bill also has my full support: it is modest, but much needed, and it will right some serious injustices; it will also save the taxpayer money. I hope that it receives Royal Assent before the general election, because it is important to get it on the statute book. It will stop state benefit being clawed back from persons who have been injured. If people sue their employers successfully, and the compensation awarded to them is above the £2,500 limit, all the state benefits they receive after the injury is clawed back. That cruel system was introduced by the compensation recovery scheme in 1990. It was bad for victims, bad for health and safety standards and bad for the Treasury and the taxpayer.
The scheme was bad for accident victims because it gave insurers an incentive to drag out cases and put pressure on victims to settle early and for less money. The Secretary of State mentioned the Trades Union Congress, which has estimated that one in 10 compensation claims started in 1989 have still not been settled. Often, the accident victims have settled for less than £2,500 because any excess would be clawed back.
The scheme was bad for health and safety, because it reduced the level of compensation. Most employers ensure that they practise good safety regulations, but some unscrupulous employers might have felt that they did not need to maintain a safe working environment because insurers no longer had to pay out large sums.
The scheme was bad for the Treasury and the taxpayer, because victims often settled for sums below the £2,500 limit and the Treasury got nothing back. Unison gave me an example. In 1990, 40 claims were settled for £2,500; in 1993, 270 were. We can see the changes that the compensation recovery unit brought about. There was no increase in the overall number of cases, so we cannot use that as a reason for the higher figure.
The GMB said that 12 of the 487 cases in 1990 were settled for less than £2,500, but that, in 1994, 56 cases out of 496 were settled for that sum. That is a fourfold increase. A similar increase has been mentioned by other unions, and I know that unions and personal injury solicitors have written in support of the Bill to hon. Members from all parties.
The evidence has been ignored for too long. On 20 March 1995, in answer to a parliamentary question about the number of claims made for less than £2,500 since 1990, I was told that the information was not readily available. If the Government had monitored claims since the introduction of the compensation recovery unit, the injustice would have been sorted out far sooner. It is interesting to note that they did not do so, and that the figures were not available to me or to other hon. Members.
The Bill will address the issue at long last. I do not claim, any more than other hon. Members do, that the Bill is perfect. Earl Russell, my colleague in another place,

pressed for amendments, and various organisations want minor changes. None the less, those organisations are keen for the Bill to become law.
I hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to make improvements, especially by way of amendments to clause 8, so that the compensator will have to provide a breakdown of the gross compensation under the three categories in schedule 2. It would then be easier for victims to assess the offer before them.
Although I want improvements, I welcome the Bill, and I believe that it must become law.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I must tell the Secretary of State that it was I who cheered him earlier when he rightly and properly complimented members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos on their sustained campaign on behalf of asbestosis sufferers throughout the United Kingdom, not just those who live near the Clyde.
There is a question that I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State who is to wind up. It was prompted by a telephone call that I received this morning from the representative of a voluntary association in Northern Ireland. The Minister will see from his copy of the Bill that the fourth paragraph of the explanatory and financial memorandum says:
The Bill extends to Great Britain. Corresponding provision may be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council.
I always like to see the word "shall" rather than the word "may" in such cases. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that, when the Bill becomes law, it will be followed immediately by such an Order in Council, for the benefit of all the sufferers in Northern Ireland. The Minister is smiling, but I am sure that he agrees that that is important.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I was smiling only because I have the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. It is yes.

Dr. Godman: I am delighted to hear that. I am sure that the voluntary organisations and, much more important the sufferers and claimants, in Northern Ireland will be pleased with the Minister's emphatic assurance.
It is not for me to ask the Minister lots of questions now, because I hope to be lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee, but may I ask him one more? I have received several complaints about the time that it takes for an appeal against a decision of the compensation recovery unit to be heard. If the Minister cannot respond to those complaints now, will he do so later in writing?
I believe that an increasing number of appeals have been upheld over the past two years; it is doubly unfortunate if a person making an appeal has to wait an unconscionably long time before it is even heard, let alone decided.
Having served my time in a shipyard as a shipwright, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), have seen many serious injuries. As one who is closely associated with the fishing industry, I have also come across numerous fatalities in that industry, both when vessels are at sea and when they are tied up at the quay.
I welcome the Bill. It is an important measure—although the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that in my view it does not go far enough. The Secretary of State would be astonished if I were more complimentary than I already have been. I have frequently engaged him in debates on issues concerning constituents and others in the unfortunate position of having to seek social security incomes of some kind from the state. If nothing else, the right hon. Gentleman usually listens courteously—although he usually gives me an equally courteous dismissal.
I have always thought that the CRU was engaged in a squalid exercise, but the record of the insurance companies is far more despicable than that of Ministers and officials in the Department of Social Security. Ministers have, at least partially, seen the error of their ways, but insurance companies seem much more concerned with providing benefits for their boards of directors than with dealing expeditiously with the legitimate claims brought by people, many of whom have been severely injured or are terminally ill.
I am sure that I speak for every hon. Member when I say that I have seen such people in my surgeries—terminally ill people with asbestosis, for example. I do not say that that disease is peculiar to the shipbuilding and construction industries, but people in those industries who have given loyal, skilled and hard-working service to their employers have often been made to suffer dreadfully because of those employers' sheer negligence and indifference.
The insurance companies have a poor record in that regard. Their conduct when dealing with such cases is always characterised by prevarication and procrastination. It is disgraceful that cases involving people who are seriously injured or who suffer from a terminal illness take so long to settle.
What is the average length of a case involving such a person—three years, four years, five years? I have dealt with some cases recently, involving people making claims against the hospital board, and been told that the average is five years. Is it the same for asbestosis sufferers and people who have been injured because of the negligence of their employers?
I wish to record my grateful appreciation of the efforts of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the GMB, the Transport and General Workers Union and, last but not least, those of the members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, including some of our Scottish colleagues who are in the Chamber today. The Scottish Trades Union Congress and the TUC have also played an important role.
On behalf of my constituents and others in Scotland who have suffered the problems that we are discussing, I wish to express thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Chairman of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend had to attend a meeting at 5 o'clock, so he offers his apologies for his unavoidable absence from the debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for organising a remarkable meeting with the Chairman of the Select Committee and other interested Members of Parliament that enabled some

seriously ill members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos to present their cases to us. I am sure that that had an effect on those members of the Select Committee who attended the meeting.
I received a letter and a briefing from Margaret Sharkey of UCATT. The briefing said:
Last year UCATT dealt with nearly 900 cases of industrial injury or disease winning over £5 million in damages for UCATT members with average settlements of £6,015. But at least half a million pounds was clawed back by the Compensation Recovery Unit.
It went on to say:
Compensation is paid by employers/insurers because they have broken the law".
That is an emphatic statement with which I have a great deal of sympathy.
The briefing continued:
if the government is unhappy about the price of ill health and injury on our building sites they should settle the score with those who are responsible by tougher enforcement of health and safety regulations, stricter penalties for those who break them and clawback of DSS benefits, if needed, from the employers/insurers on top of the settlement to the victim.
My reason for saying that I have a great deal of sympathy with that emphatic statement is that I have seen other accidents in the industries that I know well, largely—not always—brought about by the negligence of employers who demand that workers work excessive hours. Making workers do shifts of 10, 12 or more hours increases the incidence of accidents.
The briefing continued:
The scale of death, injury and ill-health in the industry is a disgrace. Construction is Britain's most dangerous industry. There were 80 building workers and 3 members of the public killed on sites in 1995/96 and 88 in 1994/95. The death and major injury rate is three times higher than the average for other industries. Studies show most of these deaths are caused by poor management and failure to take basic precautions.
To that I would add the lack of inspection by accredited inspectors. I have seen strange requests carried out by workers at the behest of their foremen and supervisors. They have had to engage in risky operations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie quoted from the Clydeside Action on Asbestos briefing. I want to reserve a couple of quotations for the Standing Committee, but I should like the Minister to respond to the group's demand on the need to avoid the delay spelled out by the Secretary of State.
Members of Clydeside Action on Asbestos said:
We are told that the reason for the delay between the Act being passed in April 1997 but only coming into force in October 1997 is to allow the CRU to prepare itself for the new system. We do not see why the CRU cannot prepare itself well before then. The Act has a broad party support, any amendments to the Act are unlikely to lead to substantial amendment and the CRU can therefore tool up quite adequately for the coming into force of this Act.
If the Act was to come into force in April 1997 there would be certainty for plaintiffs and pursuers and it would prevent administrative delays which could be occasioned by the CRU trying to tool up for a new system while operating the present system.
I consider that a legitimate complaint; matters could be expedited along the lines suggested.
The Bill is a worthwhile measure: it does not go far enough, but it will bring some relief to many of my constituents who at this very moment are pursuing claims against negligent and careless employers. If those employers were to have a son or daughter injured because


of their negligence, that might bring home to them the scale of neglect and negligence on some of our building sites and shipyards and elsewhere.
Shipyards today have a much better record than hitherto, but there are still too many accidents in workplaces throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is absolutely right to say that much more needs to be done, but at least those who are injured will derive some benefit from this legislation.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: It is an absolute disgrace that a Bill of such substance and importance is given only two and a half hours to be debated in the Chamber. Think of the time that has passed: asbestosis and mesothelioma go back as far as 1889.
It is also important to note that previous Governments have done nothing about a disease that is one of the biggest killers. Millions of pounds have been spent on prevention and training about AIDS and other diseases that are a much lower priority, but very little has been spent in the past seven years on mesothelioma: only £447,000.
The disease affects not only bricklayers and plumbers, but members of the public. I remember, when I was a plumber, going into King's Park school where pipe coverers were stripping all the pipes and taking off all the asbestos. The place was polluted with dust. If a small speck of that dust gets into people's lungs, they are finished.
We are talking about ring-fencing pain and suffering, but it is very sad that thousands of people before and after 1989 lost out on their claims. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the Government are getting rid of the small payment of £2,500, because it has been a disaster, but is it right for the Government to have gained through the clawback system from the pain and suffering of people with mesothelioma? Will those people be re-compensated? This is grave-robbing, and the families are suffering. It is not only the person working with asbestos dust who dies: it is the woman who washes the clothes and the children who greet their father or mother. That is the seriousness of the case.
I want to take a little time to explain some of the saddest cases. I want them to be recorded in Hansard,  because I believe that the Government have taken a diabolical liberty over the years, especially as it has taken eight years, from 1989 to 1997, to get something done. Nothing would ever have been done if the Social Security Committee had not examined this unfair situation in 1995, or without the efforts of organisations such as Clydeside Action on Asbestos, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Trades Union Congress and all the other unions involved. People do not think that the matter is serious; but thousands of people are dying because the environment that they walk through to get to work means that they have contracted mesothelioma or asbestosis, which is not as deadly.
Most people with mesothelioma, a cancer of the chest lining, die within one or two years of diagnosis. It is uniformly fatal and as ugly and horrible as it sounds. June Hancock, who is still alive, was diagnosed as having the disease in January 1994. She is still relatively active and mobile. She is enjoying some borrowed time, as she calls

it, because she was one of the first people to win a claim as having contracted the dust in the environment. She won the last round of her historic legal battle for compensation for the damage done to her health by asbestos. It was the first example of the so-called third wave of environmental asbestos cases to reach the British courts. Many more similar compensation claims are likely.
June is now 60. When she was a child in Armley, a suburb of Leeds, she and her friends played in the streets around the former J W Roberts asbestos factory. White fibrous dust from the factory filled the air and built up in drifts in corners and against walls as the children played in the streets. In the loading bays of the factory, they would throw snowballs made of asbestos at each other in fun. The deadly particles steadily accumulated in their lungs.
Fourteen years ago, June Hancock watched her mother die a painful death from mesothelioma. Now she, too, has the disease, but early on she decided to fight it rather than give in. She has been sustained by the fight to win compensation from T and N plc, formerly Turner and Newall, of which J W Roberts is a subsidiary. She is one among many victims of a man-made epidemic—I call it the silent epidemic—that makes few headlines but is becoming impossible to ignore. While we worry that eating beef might trigger a rare brain disease, thousands of people have died not through any choice that they made, but from having once inhaled asbestos fibre in their workplace, home or school. They are the innocent victims of our modern industrialised society.
About 3,000 people die in Britain every year from asbestos-related disease; more than half die from mesothelioma. Asbestos has killed thousands of people since it was first exploited commercially at the end of the last century. It has been, and still is, the largest occupational killer in industrialised societies. It is not one among equals but the leader of the pack. The death toll is rising steeply.
The Health and Safety Executive, not a body given to wild predictions, said recently that, by 2025, there could be 10,000 deaths annually in Britain from asbestos-related disease. That is far more than are killed in road accidents or by AIDS-related illnesses. It is 200 times more than Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease has ever killed in a year. Over the past 20 years, we have learned that asbestos is dangerous stuff, to be avoided at all costs. Less often do we hear that it is too late for many thousands of June Hancocks—the people dying and doomed to die—or that thousands more are still being exposed to risk. In many places and trades, asbestos is a plague to come, yet Governments have ignored the dangers for most of the century. We are looking forward to a Labour Government taking action to stop the killer once and for all.
The basic dangers relating to asbestos have been recognised since the end of the last century. For example, the report of Her Majesty's lady inspector of factories of 1898 mentions the
evil effects of asbestos dust".
In 1899, a 33-year-old man who came to consult Dr. Montague Murray at London's Charing Cross hospital seemed to be merely another victim of bronchitis until he mentioned that the other nine men who had worked with him spinning the new miracle substance—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Bill.

Mr. Wray: Those matters have never been raised in this Chamber. I do not see anything about it in Hansard.


However, they are important to the public and to my constituents. I have been dealing with cases of asbestosis and mesothelioma for several years. It has happened in schools, in the home, and in the workplace, and it is happening in the environment. It is time that the public had it brought to their attention and that the Government—and if not this Government, the next Labour Government—did something about it.
It is a dying shame that, over the years, the Government have allowed the Department of Social Security to defraud people who have died and suffered. They have defrauded families of the claims to which they were entitled. I know that this is an important subject and that many hon. Members wish to speak, but it is time that the nation faced its responsibilities and banned the substances that are imported into this country to make quick profit at the expense of people's lives.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill because it goes some way to remedying a gross injustice created by the Social Security Act 1989. Nevertheless, I have some concerns to highlight.
The Bill is particularly welcome because it ring-fences general damages. The part of a payment that is made for pain and suffering is to be ring-fenced; deductions for social security payments will not be taken from that element of damages but will be restricted to the payment for loss of earnings. The 1989 Act allowed the deduction to be made from the global sum, which included pain and suffering, as well as payments for loss of earnings.
The other major part of the Bill is the removal of the £2,500 limit below which benefit recovery does not occur. That is welcome because the present system deters people from pursuing claims if they feel that they are likely to be penalised. Claims of more than £2,500 are sometimes not pursued as rigorously as they might be.
We should put the Bill in an historical context by considering the situation between 1948 and 1989 and then judge its worth. When the industrial injuries legislation was enacted in 1948, contributions were worked out between employer and employee. Because the employee contributed to the industrial injuries scheme through the national insurance scheme, it was agreed that the employer would be able to deduct 50 per cent. of all benefits from any settlement. The deduction was restricted to the loss of earnings element and did not affect that part of the payment relating to pain and suffering. The system worked well until the 1989 Act was introduced. The injustice that flowed from that Act has been illustrated by some of the examples given by previous speakers.
Half the benefits paid at that time—industrial injury benefit, disablement benefit and invalidity benefit—were deducted. What is not always taken into consideration, however, is the fact that, although the deduction reduced the amount of damages, if a person returns to work but cannot do the job that he had been doing before his accident or an equivalent job, a cushion of support in the form of a special hardship allowance is available. That later became the reduced earnings allowance, which was abolished in 1990. Although it is no longer available, in many cases enormous sums are deducted from damages payments.
I wish to refer the Minister to a particular case. Following an accident in 1989, the compensation recovery unit calculated that the deduction would be made until 11 April 1997 and stated:
Amount to be deducted before payment and sent to us within 14 days of the date of payment of compensation
will be £50,500.99. The case involved a miner who had a small multiplier. The sum to be recovered by the compensation recovery unit has wiped out all the payment for loss of earnings and has taken a portion of the payment for pain and suffering.
Although we welcome the Bill, it will still wipe out considerable amounts of damages in cases such as I have cited. A person earning £10,000 a year with a multiplier of eight, where the element for loss of earnings is as much as £80,000, would receive a payment of £80,000 for loss of earnings. However, the deduction from that loss of earnings payment over a five-year period would be considerable.
As the Minister knows, in the type of case that I have quoted it would take a long time to determine the medical condition. It can take five or six years to determine whether an injury, particularly a head injury, is stable. Consequently, benefits accumulate while one is waiting for a medical condition to stabilise. Benefits that have accumulated over five years must be deducted in full, and, in many cases, the deductions wipe out the loss of earnings allowance.
If a worker can return to work but cannot continue his pre-accident occupation, there is no cushion to help him in a job that pays less than his pre-accident job. The position is therefore much worse today than it was between 1948 and 1989. Reduced earnings allowance is an essential payment and the Minister will agree that most of our partners in the European Union have a similar payment which helps to cushion the effects of light work when a person returns to a job that pays less than his pre-accident job.
Clause 2 provides that there is to be no retrospection. In effect, therefore, four different schemes are likely to operate. We shall be dealing, first, with cases of men injured under the old workmen's compensation legislation before 1948; secondly, with cases that occurred between 1948 and 1989; thirdly, with post-1989 cases that occurred before the introduction of this Bill; and, fourthly, with cases that occur after this Bill is enacted. The Minister should consider the complications that that is likely to cause and give some thought to retrospection, which would be enormously helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) made some important points about asbestosis. The Minister should consider whether it would now be wise to accept exemptions. It takes a long time for asbestosis to develop. Many people were exposed to asbestos in the 1950s. I am currently dealing with a claim by a miner who worked a machine that had asbestos brake linings and has recently developed an acute chest problem. He has been into hospital and part of his lung has been removed. His illness is attributable to the asbestos fibres that he inhaled during the 1950s when he worked that machine.
It is difficult to determine when asbestosis developed. That fact must be determined, particularly for disablement assessment. If disablement assessment goes back for many years, a sizeable lump-sum payment has to be made.


Under the Bill, whenever an award is made to compensate for negligence, a lump-sum payment is deducted from the loss of earnings element for five years. However, the deduction could be considerable and, in cases of asbestosis, could greatly reduce the amount available in a negligence claim. Will the Minister consider whether, at this stage, he is prepared to consider exemptions because asbestosis should be exempt from deductions? The disease has special characteristics and it is only fair that it should be exempt from the provisions in the Bill.
The Bill is to be welcomed because it takes us a little further down the road towards fairness, although much more needs to be done. I hope that we can outline that more fully in Committee.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me, and I apologise for missing the opening speeches because of other parliamentary business.
I very much welcome the Bill, for the reasons expressed by other hon. Members. I worked for several years alongside Clydeside Action on Asbestos, to which tribute has been paid tonight. It is an enormous tribute to that group that, although a handful of the cases that affect the compensation recovery unit are asbestos cases, tonight's debate has been dominated by that issue.
We should not be here today if Clydeside Action on Asbestos had not lobbied Parliament in November 1994 and if we had not together persuaded the Social Security Select Committee to investigate the unit's work. It is a credit to our democracy that a relatively small local group, working with Members of Parliament, can change the law. Had it not done so, the work of the compensation recovery unit would have continued unchanged.
The Select Committee's report turned the tide. It was a tremendous eye-opener for all members of the Select Committee to discover what was happening in their name. The report was damning, and said that the results of many cases were contrary to natural justice.
Let us consider the scale of the problem. In 1995, the compensation recovery unit was reclaiming much more than £100 million a year from more than 30,000 people who had been victims of accidents, diseases or illnesses for which other people were culpable. In that year, more than 1,500 people were paying back more than £15,000 in benefits. The highest sum that I could find was £94,000, which was paid back by a person who had neck injuries. Imagine the suffering that must have been involved to have led to the payment of £94,000 in benefits.
When the issue received publicity in the Daily Mirror, I received more than 150 letters from people who were outraged by what had happened to them—not only asbestos sufferers but people who had been in road accidents, those with industrial diseases, and victims of industrial accidents or any affliction that had been caused by other people.
One of the great evils of the CRU's work—implementing legislation and the Conservative Government's instructions—is that it has further undermined the insurance principle. My constituents and others believed that they had paid their stamp and would receive benefits in the event of catastrophe, but the Government clawed back that benefit. People were outraged: what was the point of paying the stamp if they were obliged to pay back the benefits?
I shall concentrate my remarks on the asbestos issues, which especially interest me because, regrettably, Clydebank in my constituency is the national leader for male deaths from mesothelioma. Our death rate is 11 times the national average because of the deadly cocktail in our background of shipyards, ship repairing and an asbestos factory.
The 10 areas that head the Government's list—the Health and Safety Executive list—for asbestos deaths are all ports. Wherever there have been ports and shipbuilding, asbestos has caused carnage. Between 1976 and 1991, in Greater Glasgow, there were 500 deaths from mesothelioma alone—not asbestos-related diseases as a whole. According to the Government, the people who died came into contact with the dust between 50 and 60 years ago; as has been said, asbestos-related diseases are by far the biggest industrial killer, and the problem is getting worse.
According to the Department of the Environment, there will be between 1,300 and 3,000 deaths from mesothelioma in 20 years' time, which dwarfs all industrial deaths, deaths on the road and deaths from any similar cause. If we take into account the fact that there are estimated to be between one and two deaths from asbestos-related lung cancer for every death caused by mesothelioma, we realise the scale of the continuing problem.
Can the House imagine the appalling way in which we have treated those sufferers? They must prove that they are suffering from an asbestos-related disease, which is not easy when many of them have been heavy smokers. They must prove where they contracted the disease, perhaps 50 to 60 years ago, and find evidence. They must enter the legal system against an asbestos industry that knew decades ago that it was killing people but decided to go on doing it, and if they win they must pay back any benefit that they have received.
The most immoral aspect of the Government's action is that they have clawed back money that was awarded for pain and suffering, although they had no right to it. That was repulsive, immoral theft, and I am glad that it is to end. I am pleased that the Government have moved on the issue, but they can claim no credit for being forced to amend what they set up. I nevertheless pay credit to the Minister, who has been unfailingly courteous on this matter.

Mr. John Home Robertson: That is out of character.

Mr. Worthington: I regret to say to my hon. Friend that it is true that the Minister has been unfailingly courteous on this matter.
The Social Security Select Committee deserves credit for suggesting that the polluter should pay: that those who cause the accident, illness or disease should pay back any benefits to the Government. That should concentrate minds and lead to earlier and larger settlements, as the clock will be ticking, not against the employee—the victim-but against the employer and insurance companies.
I pay a final tribute to Clydeside Action on Asbestos because I am convinced that without that group we should not be improving the law today. I express, as have others, the hope that improvements will be made in Committee.


There is a powerful case for exempting mesothelioma from the workings of a clawback. I also want to remember those people who have died feeling bitterly let down and angered by a so-called welfare state that kicked them as they were dying an appalling, painful death. They should be remembered today.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I happily join my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in paying tribute to Clydeside Action on Asbestos, because I am sure that all my hon. Friends are right that we should not have made the progress that we have in this campaign but for the work done by that organisation.
I am surprised that Conservative Members have not taken part in the debate because, although there are serious cases in shipyard and port areas, surely in every constituency there must be people who have had compensation clawed back by the compensation recovery unit—sometimes in grotesquely unjust circumstances.
I have been involved in this issue from its fairly early stages. I recall initiating an Adjournment debate, which was replied to by the right hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who is now responsible for prisons but was then responsible for social security—we may draw what conclusions we like from that. I also met her to discuss cases from my constituency.
I must be courteous to the Minister. The Bill makes a small but important step in the right direction in recognising the iniquity of clawing back compensation awarded in respect of pain and suffering to people who have been injured at work through no fault of their own, but I share the complaint made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham): that the provisions start from later this year. What about all those people, including several of my constituents, and no doubt people throughout the United Kingdom, who have had their payments for pain and suffering clawed back in the eight years since 1989? It was never right for the Department of Social Security to claw back money that was awarded by the courts for pain and suffering.
Can the Minister give the amount that was paid in respect of pain and suffering and clawed back by the compensation recovery unit in those eight years? Will he please, even at this late stage, consider the overwhelming case for making the provision retrospective? If it is right not to claw back that money from claimants in future, surely it must be wrong for the DSS to hang on to the money that it has illegitimately clawed back from people who have claimed on the same grounds in the past.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Important points have been made in the debate, but the overwhelming concern is to get the Bill on to the statute book. Time is running out. If, as expected, the Government call a May election, it is vital in the interests of all the considerations that have been mentioned this evening that we get the Bill into Committee and through its remaining stages, so that it will start to benefit people who have been suffering for many years.
I congratulate my hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) also contributed to the consensus that prevails in the House and the country on the matter.
It is rare that we achieve consensus, and when we do, we should take advantage of it. Despite some of the concerns that have been expressed, the Bill is positive and it takes the issue forward. Legislation should always be seen to be building for the future. We may want to return to the issue in later months or years, but the Bill represents a significant step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, said that prevention was better than compensation. That sends a powerful message to the workplaces of Britain that much of what has been achieved is fine, but much more remains to be done to make our workplaces safe, secure and friendlier environments for people to work in. The Bill does not deal with those issues but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Provan suggested, it is important that we debate the issues and record our concern. Progress has been made, but we have much more to do.
I want to put on record my appreciation of Clydeside Action on Asbestos. If democracy is to work, we as the elected representatives must have groups to pressurise us to bring about positive changes. The action group, supported by others, has been influential, and helpful work has been done by the Trades Union Congress, which is keen for the Bill to be passed.
It is important to recognise that we can have consensus on issues in Britain. The Government, the Opposition, the minority parties, the TUC and action groups throughout the country all say that changes are necessary to the payment of compensation, and we have almost completed the first part of the process.
In Committee we must deal briefly with issues. Outstanding issues remain, and these have been highlighted by my hon. Friends. An important aspect is the start date for the legislation. We hope that the Bill will complete its passage through Parliament before April, but October 1997 is the date on which it is to be implemented. When the Minister replies, will he tell us why, if the legislation has been enacted by then, it cannot take effect from April 1997, instead of October? That would send another message: not only are we concerned to get the Bill enacted, but we are keen for it to benefit people at the earliest opportunity. That would reflect well on the House and on both Government and Opposition.
I seek an assurance from the Government that with our wholehearted co-operation the remaining stages of the Bill's passage will be completed quickly. There is no reason why that should not be accomplished in the time span that we discussed, and I am sure that such reassurances will be forthcoming.
The preponderance of Scots—complemented by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone—who participated in the debate is no coincidence. In areas that have undergone tough industrial times and years of hardship, the legacy of many industries


remains. As an economy is modernised, the products of the old are evident alongside the benefits of the new. It is no surprise that my hon. Friends should speak passionately from the Opposition Benches—I almost made a slip and said the Government Benches, but that is a few weeks ahead. Even in a debate on a technical measure, there is no reason why hon. Members should not show that they care.
On issues that affect people's income and hardship, we must be clear that the Bill is not the end of the story. Many organisations will see it as a welcome step forward. There has been cross-party endorsement and endorsement from those who belong to no party. That is encouraging. The Bill should be seen as part of a process of improving working environments, improving compensation and ensuring that those who should pay up do pay up. If that message is sent out to the country, it will do a great deal for the victims and for the credibility of the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for the support that they offered for the measure. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) asked for reassurances from the Government that we would do everything in our power to speed up the Bill's progress. I hope that, by general agreement, that will be possible.
If I may summarise the hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech, the main question—apart from collateral issues—was whether the measure could take effect in April rather than October this year. I shall deal with that shortly.
It is important that I have an opportunity to respond to the hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who opened for the Opposition, made a point that was taken up by several speakers: that all personal injury action cases begin with a personal tragedy of injury or death, and that prevention is very much better than compensation. It is common ground that money will never compensate for the misery involved. The Bill, however, is directed at the narrow issue of the triangular relationship among the three parties involved, and how it should operate fairly and appropriately.
The hon. Lady described that clearly, but she mentioned a number of other matters which arise out of the Bill but go beyond it—the question of the extent to which information should be provided by the Department to encourage the promotion of personal injury claims. Because the Bill removes disincentives in a particular group of cases, it will indeed encourage litigation in appropriate cases, but the hon. Lady went on to argue that further steps should be taken by the Government. Perhaps one of the strangest sights these days is the advertisements that appear on the back of buses for lawyers offering to take up these cases. Trade unions have had a distinguished record in helping their members to bring that kind of litigation over the years.
The hon. Lady asked whether the Secretary of State could go further and either fund claims or step into the shoes of the plaintiff. She used the precise, professional language that I would expect of her: the language of subrogation. That is what occurs in private insurance—although one never bothers to read it on one's insurance policy. If the insurance company pays, it stands in the

person's shoes and controls the litigation. That is the end of it as far as the individual is concerned, and the insurer is in the driving seat.
The Government deliberately rejected that model in 1989 because we believed that it would involve direct interference in virtually every personal injury litigation. We thought that it was more appropriate to allow the parties to determine how they pursue and conduct the litigation, but nevertheless to operate the process of compensation recovery after they had done so. I do not wish to describe such a proposal for subrogation too unkindly as nationalising personal injuries litigation. However, the Government were reluctant to become involved to that extent.
I turn to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) and by several other hon. Members regarding asbestos and the powerful and persuasive role played by the Clydeside Action on Asbestos group. Asbestosis has several formidable and unpleasant features. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) graphically described the experiences and the misery of his constituents who suffer from that extremely horrible disease. Its consequences were not apparent in the past, and people either did not realise the danger or failed to take adequate precautions.
Asbestosis cases are among the most horrible, graphic and difficult of personal litigation cases. I think that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) corrects me on my Scottish pronunciation; it clearly is not adequate and I apologise to everyone involved. The hon. Gentleman correctly said that we must prove where the disease was contracted, prove the consequence and then establish the negligence. Many people, particularly the hon. Member for Provan, think that the latter issue should be easier to establish. However, the process of establishing the links in particular cases has proved long, bitter and difficult.
Despite those problems, people have succeeded in bringing such claims. The unhappiest features of the 1990 scheme, which this Bill reforms, were most horribly and graphically displayed in relation to existing asbestosis cases. However, it is difficult to see how we could go further in respect of asbestosis, and exactly what remedy and course Opposition Members advocate. It may be argued that asbestosis cases should be taken completely outside common law litigation, and that a special compensation scheme should be established. The pneumoconiosis scheme and the criminal injuries compensation scheme were mentioned in that regard.
The difficulty is that statutory schemes of compensation are not usually—I stress that this is the general rule—as generous as common law damages when one succeeds in proving one's case. Therefore, I suspect that there would be some reluctance to retreat from the common law situation. I appreciate that this group of people have suffered the worst effects of the 1990 arrangements. However, under the ring fencing for pain and suffering, that group is likely to benefit more than any other from the legislation. Mesothelioma, one of the worst manifestations of asbestosis, tends to strike many years after the event, often when a person has retired. Therefore, there would be no loss of earnings. As schedule 2


carefully limits what may be set off against what, the pain and suffering—as is intended by the legislation—should be recovered by the plaintiff, whole and undiminished.

Mr. Worthington: A range of diseases are associated with asbestos, of which mesothelioma is one. If the Minister is not willing to exempt the whole range of asbestos-related diseases, will he examine the special circumstances of mesothelioma before the Committee stage—I shall not be able to serve on that Committee—and consider whether a case could be made to exclude it from the provisions?

Mr. Evans: I am happy to examine that argument. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member wishes to discuss the matter further, I shall be delighted to do so.
The hon. Member for Midlothian made one slip of the tongue, as a result of which I hope to encourage him. He referred to people dying as a result of asbestosis and to widows suffering recoupment of benefits. Fatal accident damages are excluded under the 1990 scheme for compensation recovery.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) argued—we may return to the issue in Committee—that the Bill should provide for some form of breakdown of the defendant's offer. I am reluctant to be persuaded by that argument, as parties to a personal injury action do not need to agree upon anything other than the fact that both sides are prepared to go away for X thousand pounds, with costs to be taxed if not agreed. The parties may disagree totally about liability, contributory negligence and the medical issues, but they know that they are agreed upon whatever sum proves satisfactory to both parties. Once we start going beyond the process that is already embodied in the court rules of exchanging in the process of negotiations what each party's contentions are for particular heads of damage, we are likely to promote confusion rather than a speedy settlement.
I am conscious that time is passing, so I shall deal with several specific points. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) gave an example, and I would be grateful if he will explain later the figures that he cited. I suggest that he is not necessarily correct in his example, as I understand it. Let us suppose that his case is the worst sort and takes a full five years to settle, resulting in a loss of earnings of £80,000. The loss of earnings benefit specified in schedule 2 can be set off against that. At common law, if the loss of earnings goes beyond the five-year period, or there is handicap in the labour market, there may be further damages for reduced earnings in the future, and Smith and Manchester damages for handicap in the labour market. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs to worry about that.
I shall conclude with the important question whether the legislation should be brought into effect in April.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am concerned about the delay in the appeals procedure and the compensation recovery unit taking back money. As I have said, that process could take much longer than the original case.

Mr. Evans: I apologise to both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who also raised that important point. They are right to be concerned about delays in the appeals process regarding compensation recovery. Happily, the

number of appeals even under the existing scheme has proved far fewer than anticipated or feared. The Bill will simplify, and one hopes speed up, the appeals process. I shall write to both hon. Gentlemen and provide the statistics on those delays. I will be happy to examine the issue further in Committee.
Several hon. Members asked whether the measure might be introduced before October or retrospectively. I follow the argument of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson): if the way in which it has been done since 1990 is wrong, should it not be possible to compensate those who have suffered unfair losses according to the new scheme?
However, it would be difficult to unscramble cases settled over that period when we do not know the basis of settlement. For example, we do not have the information to answer his question as to how much pain and suffering damages have been eroded in specific cases, let alone in total. There may well, of course, be a small fraction of cases, in which a judge has determined the case, where there is a definitive breakdown, but those are a few cases out of a hundred. They are the exceptions. It is just not practical or possible to unscramble them. I regret that that must be my answer.

Dr. Godman: The Under-Secretary of State speaks like a lawyer.

Mr. Evans: I am a lawyer. I have practised on personal injuries at the Bar. I have seen these tragic cases while acting for people who have suffered from them. Every hon. Member who made the point that we are talking not about statistics but about human blood is absolutely right.
This is not quite "no retrospection". When the accident occurred is immaterial. We will catch claims if they are in the pipeline. The difficulty with introducing that before October is that the regulations have to be made, and there have to be the usual consultation procedures. Perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will offer to speed that up. I shall talk to him about that afterwards if he wishes. The second issue is the administration of the CRU. It is the Government's view that it is not practical to speed it up at this stage.
I commend the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY (RECOVERY OF BENEFITS) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act, and
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to the Secretary of State under the Act and estimated by him to relate to payments out of money provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Read a second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order—[20 February].

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 277 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 278

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 184, line 34, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Mr. John McFall: We agree with the provisions of the Bill, and it is a welcome measure, but I would like the Minister to explain why the amendment was tabled. What is its aim? Who has he consulted? What are its implications?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch: This amendment removes the privilege amendment that was inserted in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 278, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 18 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported; read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Orders of the Day — Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time.

6.35 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to take up your time and that of the House, but are you able to confirm that, during this procedure, I can ask the Minister a question relating to a clause in the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, on clauses.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order—[20 February].

Orders of the Day — PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase by or under the Act in the sums so payable.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That clauses 42 to 53 stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: A number of clauses concern buildings that have suffered severe deterioration. For example, the Gourock ropeworks in Port Glasgow is in the most appalling condition. What powers does the Minister have under clause 47 to acquire that building, or to allow the local authority to acquire it, so that it can be demolished? I am the last person to argue for a listed building to be demolished, particularly one with such a noted industrial and architectural heritage, but the Minister knows how long I have pursued this case.
If the Minister cannot answer now, I hope that he will deal with the matter under this group of clauses. For the people of Port Glasgow, that appalling situation has festered for far too long. I believe that these clauses allow the Minister to act decisively, along with Historic Scotland, to bring an end to the matter by allowing the local authority to demolish the building.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the Gourock ropeworks on numerous occasions in the past. I am sure that he is aware that this is purely a consolidation measure: the Bill does not change any legislation; it consolidates it. I take his point on board, and I shall write to him with the updated position on that building, which I know is of great concern to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 54 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 1, in clause 83, page 49, line 24, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Clause 83, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules I to 3 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, reported; read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

PLANNING (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58A (Consolidation Bills), That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

PLANNING (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58A (Consolidation Bills), That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

National Heritage Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE NATIONAL HERITAGE MEMORIAL FUND

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, after 'aesthetic', insert 'anthropological, sociological,'.
Clause 1 extends the list of bodies eligible to receive lottery funds. My amendment would include in that list things with a sociological or anthropological interest, thus enabling communities to be included. The Bill will allow the trustees to provide financial assistance to projects which would, among other things, secure
the preservation or enhancement of such things
and would encourage
the maintenance and development of the skills required for their preservation or enhancement".
It would make sense to include in both those provisions the preservation of a community for a community.
Clause 1(3) provides that financial assistance may be given to various projects, including projects to
acquire property of any kind (including land)".
That aspect is of interest to me in my capacity as my party's spokesperson on both environment and land.
The amendment arose from a discussion that I had in January with Ms Anthea Case, director of the national heritage memorial fund, as a result of the rejection of the bid submitted by the Isle of Eigg trust to buy the Isle of Eigg. The meeting was an attempt to clarify the reasons for that rejection. The decision was complex, but it was clear from the meeting with Ms Case that the board considered that, in the terms of the legislation, heritage did not include people or communities. She also said that, although the definition in the Bill was much wider, it still would not have included the interests of the community or objectives such as relieving poverty.
In the case of the Isle of Eigg trust, there was a perceived potential for a conflict between the interests of the community and the interests of heritage as defined by the legislation. That was also described as a conflict between the private interests of the community and the public interests of the nation. In the trust's constitution, community representatives had a greater interest than the so-called national heritage interest, as represented by the Scottish Wildlife Trust.

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I am well aware of the issue that the hon. Lady is raising. It has caused concern to me as well—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has raised it with the national heritage memorial fund. My only anxiety is that this may be a rather complicated way of trying to resolve a problem which could be resolved more simply. I say that in as helpful a way as possible. Perhaps it is due to a natural reticence about seeing the concerns of people defined as sociological and anthropological, rather than being defined more precisely in terms of the community aspect of the heritage lottery fund.

Ms Cunningham: We felt that the issue needed to be resolved, and we had a clear opportunity to do that—


especially in view of Miss Case's advice that, as the Bill currently stood, the definition of "heritage" would not cover the circumstances that arose in the Isle of Eigg trust. It was deemed that there was a risk that social and economic objectives on the island could take precedence over so-called heritage interests, and that that would continue to be an issue even after the present Bill, with its extension, went through—as it presumably would.
The opportunity that the Bill presented to widen the definition to include community interests gave rise to the amendment, but if there are better ways of doing it I should be interested to hear about them. We want the change to be made so that bids such as that of the Isle of Eigg trust can be made and have a chance of succeeding without being ruled out on the basis of technicalities. I would argue—as would many other hon. Members—that the preservation of a community is not the same as the private interests of the individual, but the issue appeared to be being presented in those terms. A sustainable and healthy community is a prerequisite for a sustainable environment.
Eigg is a very beautiful island, which ought to be preserved; but it is also an island of great need, where people live without mains electricity, gas, a public water supply or refuse disposal arrangements. All those are practical difficulties which must be dealt with.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Surely there is little or no difference between the acquisition of an island and the acquisition of an estate. There is no difference between an attempt by people living on an island to buy that island, and a similar attempt by people living on an estate.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman may be making an analogy with the Assynt crofters. There has been one other occasion in Scotland on which this kind of community interest has been paramount and has, in a sense, taken precedence over individual private interests. As Scottish Members will know, ownership of Eigg has received extensive publicity over many years, and we all know of the difficulties to which private absentee ownership has led for the community there. That is why there is so much anxiety about the decision in this instance.
I have outlined some of the practical difficulties that the community has to bear and which are a result of the negligence of successive absentee landlords. The island and the estate had been allowed to deteriorate and the people faced a very insecure future.

Dr. Godman: Many of us would much prefer the island to be owned by a trust rather than by such eccentric characters as Mr. Schellenberg.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right. The recent history of the Isle of Eigg has caused grave concern, and community ownership would seem a far more secure arrangement for the future than the current ownership by Mr. Marumma—which is in itself problematic—and the previous ownership by Mr. Schellenberg, which lasted for many years and during which very little was done for the community.
The bid for the community was a partnership between Highland council and the Scottish Wildlife Trust, and won the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the

House. It was made in the recognition that securing a sustainable future for the community and securing the same for the island were inextricably linked. The same circumstances can be seen in other parts of Scotland, but they may also be in evidence in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is a peculiar and restrictive definition of "heritage" that excludes the survival of communities, as the Bill at present appears to do. In Scotland, certainly, heritage is about much more than the Churchill papers, the opera house or, indeed, the national museums. As the director of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said at the time of the rejection of the bid:
To buy back a Scottish island … from its absentee … owner and regenerate and protect it for future generations to come would seem to me to be a perfect heritage project.
That was how it was seen on both sides of the political divide in Scotland.
Arguably, community ownership in Scotland revives a much older aspect of, in particular, highland heritage: the indissoluble link between people and place. I believe that a concept of heritage that included people and community would be supported by the vast number of members of the Scottish public who buy lottery tickets every week.

Mr. Robert Key: The hon. Lady is right in saying that cultural heritage is part of the general heritage. Is not the case of the Isle of Eigg, however, similar to that of the Isle of Raasay, or that of the Scilly islands off Cornwall? What matters is the sustainable development that can be encouraged on those islands, rather than the question of ownership. The infamous Dr. Green on Raasay was a prime example of the same thing more than 30 years ago. Encouraging the economic life of the community is more important than ownership.

Ms Cunningham: That may be so in theory, but our experience in Scotland tells us that it is not necessarily so in practice. Certainly, the Assynt crofters have built a far more sustainable future for Assynt than they had under the previous ownership, and so far the individual ownership of the Isle of Eigg has not so far shown the possibility to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
The people who live on Eigg put up with an extraordinary position for a long time. Only then did they decide that the only answer for the future was to buy the island as a community. They are, in a sense, following the precedent laid down by the Assynt crofters, although the land ownership and the issues are different. We should allow this development to take place. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response, especially in the light of Miss Case's view that under the Bill, even as it stands, the people cannot really be included in the concept of heritage. I know that views may differ, but in the absence of any clear guideline I intend to press the amendment.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I support the principle of the amendment, which is interesting in an historical context. The national heritage memorial fund did not appear out of thin air: it has a distinguished pedigree which, sadly, has been largely forgotten in the course of time. Its origins lie in the


national land fund which was set up by the post-war Labour Government and which Hugh Dalton described in his Budget statement as a memorial to those who had fallen in the second world war
better than any work of art in stone or bronze."—[Official Report, 9 April 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1840.]
The purpose of the national land fund was to acquire properties for the enjoyment of the nation and to ensure access for the enjoyment of the nation. The fund's achievements in its early years were stunning. Many properties and areas of land were bought for the nation in that period, and they are still enjoyed by the common people of every part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John McFall: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I think I know what my hon. Friend has to say.

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend will remember that one of the first uses to which the fund was put was to purchase land on Ben Lomond and Loch Lomond. Fifty years later, there has still not been any progress in that area. My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.

7 pm

Mr. Wilson: I think that my hon. Friend is right. The one that I was thinking of, which I believe is in his constituency, was Rowardennan —

Mr. McFall: The same property.

Mr. Wilson: It is the same property. It was bought for access by people, and particularly for the Scottish Youth Hostels Association, I believe. There is a long list. It was a fantastic period of acquisition, but not for the state—that is the important point—which used its interventionist role to acquire the land and property for third parties. The Balmacara estate in Lochalsh is another obvious example. It was bought through the national land fund and handed over to the National Trust for Scotland. Throughout Britain, such properties were acquired.
I need hardly say that the Tories hated the concept from the outset. They resisted the setting up of the national land fund. They were not interested in war memorials which took the form of giving ordinary people access to the land. Stone and bronze might be all right, but certainly not land, so the Tories opposed the setting up of the fund, and when they inherited power in 1951 they set about destroying it.
Initially the Tories did that by stealth. They allowed the national land fund to fall into disuse and there were no further acquisitions. Then, around 1955, Peter Thorneycroft in his Budget robbed the fund of its assets and returned them to the Exchequer, leaving a small fraction of what had originally been there. The Tories then slipped through an important clause which allowed the fund to acquire not only land and property, but the contents of property. In that way, with one piece of sleight of hand the national land fund was transformed from a land fund, as its name suggested, into an arts fund. It became a slush fund for the owners of stately homes and other properties. It was used for buying works of art and as a subsidy for the people who had such things to sell.
The Tories changed the fund's name to the national heritage fund and in the fulness of time that became the national heritage memorial fund, which in turn spawned the national heritage lottery fund, so there is a straight continuum.

Sir Hector Monro: May I put the hon. Gentleman right? I took the legislation through the House in 1979 or 1980. The word "memorial" was added in Committee because we wanted to mark the relationship with those who had given their lives in the war. That was an important step. I am not saying that what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) says in principle may not be right, but it would be worrying to change the principle of that legislation without more detailed consultation than we are having today.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are not going to change the legislation tonight without having more detailed consideration, but it is an important marker to lay down. I have sufficient respect for the right hon. Gentleman to think that it may well have been he who did it. After a 40-year gap, the concept of "memorial" was restored to the fund. It is an important reminder that its origins, as I am sure he would endorse, were as a memorial fund to buy land for the enjoyment of the nation.
Until recent years, the national heritage memorial fund would not consider the acquisition of land. It has been an advance that in recent years it has been prepared to recognise that land is a vital part of the national heritage and it has supported some important acquisitions on that basis. It has supported the acquisition of Strathaird on Skye by the John Muir trust, Glen Feshie in the Cairngorms and other lands of which the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is well aware.
That is good, but the fund still has to demonstrate a case in terms of the environment to have an interventionist role. The proposition that it should be able to intervene on social as well as environmental grounds is modest superficially, but has far-reaching consequences because it would be a device whereby Government could intervene to rescue not only communities such as Eigg, which has been mentioned, but many others, where there is a will and a need for community ownership as the only device for sustaining the economy and the social fabric of the region. But the money simply is not available.
In other words, the fund could act as an interventionist instrument in the market for land. On that basis, it is an admirable concept to promote. I have advocated it in the past and I hope to do so again, but the key to the whole land question is that there must be ways of intervening in the market and that the highest bidder must not be allowed to prevail because the record of the highest bidder has been disastrous in many areas.
For many years, Eigg was under the benign ownership of the Runciman shipping family, but paradoxically, just as with the Horlicks in Gigha or other benevolent landowners, it is they who best demonstrate the weakness of the system because, inevitably, the benevolent landowner dies and every time that happens the lottery starts all over again and the community do not know who they are going to end up with.
Eigg ended up initially with a terrible man called Farnham-Smith, an imposter who claimed to be a commander. It turned out eventually that he had once been


a very junior officer in the London fire brigade, but by then he had scammed public money and visited a terrible blight on Eigg—followed by Schellenberg and Maruma, and we all know that story.
However, Eigg is not an isolated example, but a general principle. There must be means of intervening in the land market. The one that we are discussing is interesting and has great potential and my main purpose in rising to speak was to point out that it has a strong and important historical pedigree.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As so often in these matters, I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), although I notice that he can speak with authority about the power of ownership—in his case, the power of the ownership of the press, which he never hesitates to use to the full to attack people who happen not to belong to his political party. I go along entirely with him in rebutting the arguments of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who suggested that ownership was not a significant factor in considering land matters.
I take the history of this back beyond the history to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North referred. He might agree with me, as I do with him, that Lloyd George, after the first world war, played a notable part in making land available for soldiers returning from the war. The outcome of that role is that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a significant landowner. In another measure, we are considering whether that land should be brought closer to the communities than it has been under the ownership of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I have also had a long history of seeking to bring the ownership of land in the community to the community. When I was in the Labour party, I proposed a Bill, which alas did not enjoy universal support from the Labour party at the time, to require owners of land either to disgorge their land or to accept higher tax rates on it if they were not prepared to meet certain community development standards. Unfortunately, those arguments fell on deaf ears until they were taken up by Sir Kenneth Alexander in the Highlands and Islands development board, who put forward proposals that were very close to those that I had advocated some years earlier. Those proposals were, once again, not acted on by the then Labour Government and fell when that Government fell, and no more has been heard of them since.

Mr. Wilson: As we are swapping anecdotes in this potted history of the land issue, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall where he stood on the Crofting Reform Act 1976. If people such as I had been supported by people such as him—he was then representing the Labour party in Parliament—in advocating community rather than individual croft ownership of land, most assuredly the highlands and islands would be a much better place today.

Mr. Maclennan: I must admit that I have always found it easier to represent the interests of my constituents, not as a whipped Labour Member but as an independent-minded member of an independent-minded party. The straitjacket that I was in in 1976 was made the tighter by the fact that I was a member of that Government.
The reality is that land and land ownership is the key to the well-being of many communities, and that their future could be greatly assisted by the widening of the

ambit of the national heritage memorial fund, which is what we are debating today. I am glad that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) has moved amendment No. 1, because it has given us an opportunity to consider the matter in some detail. Like her, I have great sympathy with the objective of obtaining for the people ownership of the island of Eigg. However, I do not believe that the people who live there—some of whom have come quite recently—are a part of the heritage in quite the way that she described. The important feature is the capacity of those who are living there productively to develop their land, not to keep the land in aspic.
The Assynt case to which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross referred is important, both as a precedent and as a spur to other communities to do likewise. It is a precedent in that several public funds assisted the Assynt crofters trust to acquire ownership of the land. The trust was assisted by the local authority, by the local enterprise company, Highland and Islands Enterprise, and by many individuals across the length and breadth of the country.
The virtue and value of ownership is demonstrable. Paragraphs 1(3)(1) and 1(3)(2) are too narrowly defined to take account fully of those opportunities, although I realise that clause 1 allows trustees to provide assistance when the interest to be protected is of a scenic, aesthetic, archaeological or scientific nature. I think that all those interests exist in the case of the isle of Eigg, and therefore find it hard to believe that the application was refused on the ground of the narrowness of clause 1. It is beyond argument that the island of Eigg is important, and that it is a suitable case for such treatment.
7.15 pm
The island of Canna was an example of beneficent ownership when owned by John Lorne Campbell. It came into the ownership of the National Trust through his bounty, and it remains a remarkable testimony to enlightened ownership—in sharp contrast to some of the other cases that have been mentioned in this debate, including the isle of Raasay.
I believe that it should be possible to seek assistance from the national heritage memorial fund to acquire land for purposes of strengthening community existence in areas such as those under discussion. I am not certain that to describe the ends as "anthropological" or "sociological", as the amendment does, assists in the goal of strengthening community existence. Notwithstanding my doubts on that, however, I think that the purpose behind the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross merits our support. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House today that the Government's intention is that such cases should be open to assistance if such assistance is suitable in the view of the trustees, and that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent communities from so acquiring the lands.
I can understand objections to using the national heritage memorial fund to provide electricity, water or other forms of aid that might be necessary to sustain the development of an island. That would seem to be a more appropriate task for economic or social development agencies, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise or the local enterprise company. To acquire ownership of land, however, seems to go right back to the fund's original purposes, on which the current fund is based. I am entirely


at one with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North on that, and I hope that he will say so in his columns in the West Highland Free Press.

Dr. Godman: I promise that my speech will be exceedingly brief. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that I am at one with him in his comments on the use of the national heritage memorial fund. I should also like to tell the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—who was far too modest to mention his role in the 1979–80 proceedings—that his actions led to the insertion of the term "national heritage memorial fund". We owe him a vote of thanks.
I have some sympathy for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), although I, too, winced when I saw the terms "sociological" and "anthropological". I am sure that she would argue that she used those terms merely as a technical device.
As for the Eigg trust, I have every sympathy for the people who live on that beautiful island. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) asked the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross a question on sustainable development. I believe that the island could have sustainable economic development through, for example, tourism, and perhaps through fishing and one or two related activities.
A few years ago, on one beautiful summer's day, I and other members of the then Scottish Select Committee visited the island. It was then owned by Mr. Schellenberg. I recall—not that it had anything to do with the right hon. Member for Dumfries or myself—that, on the very day that we visited, the island had its first robbery. He, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), the late Nicholas Fairbairn and I picked up quite a few fivers and tenners in the heather.
The people of the island have been treated badly by a succession of owners. Mr. Schellenberg, with respect, could be described as an eccentric. More recently, a German who is supposed to be an artist promised all types of things to the islanders but delivered not one of them. In moving amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross has argued a good case for the Eigg trust, which I think is worthy of support. We should be able to use the national heritage memorial fund to enable communities to acquire land. I look forward to the day when the Scottish Grand Committee debates the important and controversial issue of who owns and manages the land of Scotland.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): As regards the terms of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), I hope that I can satisfy her—although I have my doubts—that the words that she wishes to insert into the Bill are both unnecessary and undesirable.
Clause 1 inserts into the National Heritage Act 1980 two new provisions defining the scope of the funding powers of the NHMF trustees. Under the first provision—that is, new section 3 of the 1980 Act—the trustees' powers will be
exercisable in the case of things of any kind which are of scenic, historic, archaeological, aesthetic, architectural, engineering artistic or scientific interest".

We are confident that that catalogue—bearing in mind particularly the inclusion of historic, archaeological and scientific interest—can be wide enough to encompass anthropology and sociology.
A project relating to objects of anthropological or sociological interest would thus qualify for NHMF funding, provided—I emphasise this, as it was omitted from most if not all of the speeches so far—the trustees were satisfied that the project was of importance to the national heritage and of public benefit. Even under the existing legislation, the heritage lottery fund has already provided support for a number of museum projects where collections of local historical interest might be viewed as having a sociological emphasis. Examples include the local history collections at the Oxfordshire county museum and the ethnography collections at the Royal Albert Memorial museum in Exeter.
I would further direct the hon Lady's attention to the second provision in clause 1 of the Bill—that is, new section 3A of the 1980 Act. This gives the NHMF a new power to support certain projects that the trustees consider relate to an important aspect of the history, natural history or landscape of the United Kingdom and are of public benefit. The projects concerned cover public exhibitions, archive projects and comprehensive works of reference.
The aim of the new funding power is to enable the NHMF to help enhance understanding of the nation's history independently of its physical remains.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister saying without any contradiction that the isle of Eigg could be purchased under the provisions of the heritage fund?

Mr. Sproat: It could be done if the trustees were convinced that it would be of public benefit and in the national interest, not the sociological or anthropological issues that the hon. Lady is seeking to insert into the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NHMF and the heritage lottery fund work totally independently of Ministers. I understand that on legal advice they felt that there was a conflict between the public interest and the interest of the residents, and for that reason they declined to give the go-ahead to the bid.

Mr. Wilson: It is obviously a narrow and important point to define, but although the community interest and the public interest might not be synonymous terms, they are certainly not contradictory. If decisions by the trustees are made on the basis of language, it is important for the Minister to define those terms, particularly the use of the word "public". The definition may go beyond the community that is directly affected, so is it the local authority or, in the case of Eigg—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That is a very long intervention. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Mr. Sproat: It is a fair point. It is certainly true that the community interest and the national interest are not synonymous. It could be that on occasions they would not be in conflict, but as I understand it, on this occasion there was doubt that the crofters' interest was synonymous with the national interest. That was the


sticking point. It is up to the trustees of the NHMF and the heritage lottery fund to make a judgment based on their interpretation of that interest.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could give a sharper, clearer definition. The answer is no. It would require a legal, forensic use of language that I cannot guarantee to produce off the top of my head, and it would also vitiate the principle that the judgment must be made by the trustees. Having taken expert and legal advice, which is what they nearly always do, the trustees believe that there could be a conflict between the narrow but, in the view of Opposition Members, good interest of the crofters and the national interest. To answer the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the national heritage memorial fund would be looking for an access far more general than the community and the local authority area to which he referred.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: That narrow point is the nub of the matter. As the community interest had 50 per cent. representation on the trust board, potentially in future the community, the Scottish Wildlife trust and the Highland council could disagree. The decision was taken because the community was looking for 50 per cent. Had there been only 25 per cent. interest, it might have been okay. Is the Minister saying that any such application where the community is looking for 50 per cent. or more will always be ruled out?

Mr. Sproat: No. I would say neither that nor reducing it to 25 per cent. would guarantee that it would be acceptable. It would be up to the trustees to judge for themselves whether any percentage was benefiting a particular or sectional interest to the disbenefit of the national interest. That is a matter that the trustees must decide for themselves in the specific circumstances of any application. On this occasion, the 50 per cent. to which the hon. Lady referred was present, and they decided that it was not in the national interest.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the hon Lady will agree that the amendment she proposes would not serve the purpose that she seeks. Given that the list of heritage "interests" specified in new section 3 is already rather long, I would be most reluctant to extend it any further without good reason. The risk in adding further entries to the list is not just that it would become impossibly unwieldy but that the omission of any particular specialism might then be a source of misunderstanding and concern.

Ms Cunningham: I shall not add anything further, but I must insist on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 169.

Division No. 83]
[7.27 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Boateng, Paul


Alton, David
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell-Savours, D N


Bennett, Andrew F
Canavan, Dennis


Benton, Joe
Chidgey, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)





Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McFall, John


Clelland, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Coffey, Ms Ann
Maclennan, Robert


Corston, Ms Jean
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


(Perth Kinross)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Dafis, Cynog
Meale, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Michael, Alun


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Milburn, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Mortey, Elliot


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Mullin, Chris


Dixon, Rt Hon Don
Murphy, Paul



Donohoe, Brian H
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Eastham, Ken
O'Hara, Edward


Ennis, Jeff
Olner, Bill


Faulds, Andrew
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter L


Flynn, Paul
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Foster, Fit Hon Derek
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Don (Bath)

Reid, Dr John


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Graham, Thomas
Simpson, Alan


Gunnell, John
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Hoyle, Doug
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Timms, Stephen


Hutton, John
Tipping, Paddy


Illsley, Eric
Touhig, Don


Janner, Greville
Turner, Dennis


Johnston, Sir Russell
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Walley, Ms Joan


Keen, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Wilson, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Wray, Jimmy


Kirkwood, Archy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Liddell, Mrs Helen



Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Andrew Welsh.

NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Cran, James


Bellingham, Henry
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Day, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bright, Sir Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Browning, Mrs Angela
Elletson, Harold


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butcher, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Faber, David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fabricant, Michael



Carrington, Matthew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Cash, William
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Clappison, James
French, Douglas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Fry, Sir Peter


(Rushcliffe)
Gallie, Phil






Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paice, James


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Grylls, Sir Michael
Porter, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawkins, Nick
Richards, Rod


Hawksley, Warren
Riddick, Graham


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hendry, Charles
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Rowe, Andrew


Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Sims, Sir Roger


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Jessel, Toby
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sproat, Iain


Knox, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Kynoch, George
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stephen, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stern, Michael


Legg, Barry
Streeter, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lidington, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thomason, Roy


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Luff, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


MacKay, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maitland, Lady Olga
Viggers, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Walden, George


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Waller, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waterson, Nigel


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Whittingdale, John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Moate, Sir Roger
Wilkinson, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Willetts, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Norris, Steve
Tellers for the Noes:


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Sebastian Coe.


Ottaway, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Sproat.]

Mr. Tony Banks: In accordance with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, I welcome the Bill as amended—or not as the case may be—but I want to say something about the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund, the way in which they are appointed and the powers that they will have under the Bill.
The Bill extends the trustees' areas of responsibility and gives them the ability to spend that much more money from the national heritage memorial fund, which amounts

to about £280 million a year. I understand that they are not particularly good spenders. Indeed, they are among the slowest spenders. I think that the Secretary of State ought to look at the way in which the trustees' internal systems work.
I find the sort of people who are trustees annoying. Who are they? Where have they suddenly come from? They have effectively become the arbiters of taste; they will decide what particular moneys will be spent on what particular schemes. They all share the same value system. I do not see anyone from Forest Gate or the east end in this little lot, yet in large measure the money that has been raised from the national lottery, which goes into the national heritage memorial fund, comes from communities such as the one that I represent. Where is our input into the decision making?
The list of trustees includes Lord Rothschild, for example. I notice that there are at least four old Etonians among the trustees. Indeed, Eric Anderson is a former headmaster of Eton. I of course understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) might have some affinity with such individuals, but he knows that I love him dearly. Most of the trustees, if not all, came from public schools or were educated at one. What do they know about life in Forest Gate among ordinary working-class communities? Those people will be spending vast sums of money that are raised by the communities to which I have referred.
Does Lord Rothschild ever do the national lottery? He is as rich as Croesus, so I doubt very much that he does. In fact, someone said that Lord Rothschild could lose a winning lottery ticket and not even be upset. Sir Richard Carew Pole, another trustee, is a 13th baronet. We have lots of those in Newham; we are always falling over baronets as we go around the place. I notice in "Who's Who" that Sir Richard is described as a farmer and a daydreamer. I hope that he does not daydream when he is out on a tractor—of course, he would not be out on a tractor, because he is a gentleman farmer and would let someone else to do the dirty work.
Why should such people be making the decisions? Where is our input? They are all appointed by the Secretary of State. You can bet your life that a list of the great and good has been pushed forward and the Secretary of State has said, "Oh yes, I went to school with this one. Oh, he's a good chap." That is the way in which the system works. I find it obnoxious and unacceptable that the great and the good will decide exactly how our money will be spent. I want to know, for example, whether the Secretary of State or the Minister has considered getting some good working-class stock on the list. I am available—I did not go to public school.
The trustees' powers are being extended, so they will undoubtedly be looking round at the sort of things that their friends are interested in funding. That is what it amounts to; that is what will happen. They will decide what is to be considered national heritage. After all, the same people decided to give £13 million, or was it £14 million, of lottery money—when one is the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and gets so much money, it does not really matter whether the amount is an extra £1 million or £2 million either way—to Churchill's scribbling, which I found thoroughly objectionable. They thought that, since it was the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, there would be great acclaim for such a decision; that people would take great pride in it;


that the working-class would be throwing their sweaty caps up in the air and saying, "Wow, what a great thing to be doing!" Suddenly, of course, the roof fell in because people thought that the decision was distasteful and the wrong way in which to spend lottery money.
I participate in the lottery every week—in fact, twice a week now. I would very much like to win. As I have said, I would fax from Mustique or wherever I happened to be my application for the Chiltern Hundreds when I won. I would not even bother to turn up. I object to these middle class and upper middle class public school boys and girls spending money that we raise in areas such as the east end. I want to ensure that they consider schemes in areas where they do not normally go, know nothing about and, frankly, do not care anything about.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central becomes the new Minister responsible for the arts, I hope that he will go through the lists of appointees and not show any affection for old Etonians merely because he is one of them. I hope that he will be cheerfully slitting throats. That is what we want in this place; we want a bit of red terror when the Labour Government come to power. I want Labour Ministers going through the lists of the great and the good, weeding out the Tories and all the friends of the Tories.
One of my hon. Friends raised the fact yesterday that so many Tories who are connected with companies that give £4 million to the Conservative party serve on quangos. That is corruption because it is patronage. I do not think that we should be prepared to allow it to happen with money that is effectively public money—money that has been raised in areas such as mine in the east end so that a bunch of middle-class tossers can decide how it should be spent.
I shall not oppose the Third Reading, but I hope that I have put on record my extreme distaste at the way in which people are selected by the Secretary of State and can decide how our money will be spent.

Mr. Sproat): I should like to correct a minor inaccuracy in the tirade of vilification of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). The trustees are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman that, if he has any suitable names in mind for membership of any of the 50 quangos that we have to fill in the Department of National Heritage, I would be extremely interested to hear them. There is certainly no superfluity of excellent candidates, so if he can suggest anyone, whether from his constituency or elsewhere, I would genuinely like to hear about them.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister assure me that the trustees play the game with applications from Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Mr. Sproat: Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Civil Procedure Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill prepares the way for an important set of reforms which will serve the civil justice system well into the future. It enables us to introduce wide-reaching changes which will ensure greater access to justice for all. We will introduce measures to ensure that going to court is quicker, cheaper and simpler—measures that will create a system that is focused on the needs of litigants.
High on our agenda is the establishment of a new civil procedure rule committee. A great deal of work will be necessary to ensure that we can produce a new code of rules that meets the needs of modern litigants. We realise the importance of recruiting the best possible candidates to serve on the new committee, and will proceed to initiate the necessary appointments process so that the committee can be up and running within the next few months.
The establishment of the Civil Justice Council is important to ensure that all those with an interest in the civil justice system can play their part in the reform process. Clearly, the reforms that we are introducing will have a significant impact on, and pose new challenges for, all those involved in the system. The Civil Justice Council will enable all groups to co-operate in the development of the reforms and ensure that they are prepared for the changes. We are firmly committed to carrying forward the reforms in partnership with all other participants in the system, and the council will provide a key forum for that. Our intention is for the council to be established by the summer, and our plans will be set out shortly.
Lord Woolf presented us with a blueprint for a dynamic civil justice system. He has done an outstanding job and deserves the gratitude of us all. The Government are working up the details of how to achieve the blueprint. In particular, the procedures necessary to support judicial case management—on the fast track and the multi-trackand the new costs regime need to be introduced carefully. We recognise the importance of consultation on the detail of the new procedural systems needed to ensure that cases are heard fairly and efficiently. In the next few months, we will meet interested bodies to discuss the procedures and will publish consultation papers later in the year. Our reforms go hand in hand with our major reforms of legal aid, which were announced last year.
The Government remain fully committed to the October 1998 deadline for the introduction of the main aspects of the reforms, and the steps I have just outlined are a testament to that. A detailed plan of action has been drawn up to ensure that we keep on track. We are determined that our vision of a faster, cheaper and simpler civil justice system will be delivered.
The debates in the House and in the other place have shown that our reforms have support from all quarters of society. I thank all hon. Members for their support and help in the Bill's progress through the House, especially the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The Government have proven that we place the highest value


on achieving access to justice for all, and creating a civil justice system of which we can continue to be proud and which will meet the needs of our citizens well into the 21st century.

Mr. Paul Boateng: We have supported the Bill in the other place, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It will provide a context for the implementation of subsequent reforms. We are indebted for all the work that has gone into preparing and improving the Bill.
We welcome especially the creation of a Civil Justice Council, which will be an advisory body. Its function will be to promote the aims of the civil justice system and review its operation and development. For the first time, provision will be made for an input from the consumer of legal services, who all too often is forgotten in the development of our justice system. We welcome the fact that that will change, as a result of an amendment supported by Lord Irvine of Lairg in the other place. The important and significant voice of the consumer will be heard on the Civil Justice Council.
As we give the Bill a Third Reading, we should remember that access to justice demands that those who use our court system are not burdened by excessive fees. Many Labour Members are concerned by the recent imposition of excessive fees which are designed to make the civil justice system self-financing, but which will exclude many from access to it. We condemn the imposition of those increased fees, because it runs counter to the Government's stated objectives in introducing the Bill.
Nevertheless, we broadly welcome the Bill, because it provides the context for subsequent reform. That reform should be subjected to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, because it is farcical to imagine that the reforms encapsulated in Lord Woolf's report, "Access to Justice Final Report", can be implemented without considerable cost to the Exchequer. The taxpayer will have to pay a price for implementation of the Woolf report. We have urged the Government to publish the figures and tell us how much implementation will cost, and we will continue to press them in the remaining weeks before the general election.
The Labour party welcomes the Bill, but we will review civil justice, including the legal aid system, as an early priority of the next Labour Government. Our priority is true access to justice; that cannot be achieved without a cost-benefit analysis, which is markedly lacking to date. With that warning to the Government, we welcome the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Sex Offenders Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 2

REGISTER OF SEX OFFENDERS

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to maintain a register of the information supplied to the police under this Act, whether on the Police National Computer or otherwise.
(2) Nothing in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 shall prevent the retaining of details of a person on a register maintained under the provisions of this section.
(3) In this Act, "register" includes data stored (whether or not with other data) on a computer database from which the information to which subsection (1) above relates can be retrieved.'—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Use of information on the register of sex offenders—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation, make regulations in respect of—

(a) the means whereby information notified to the police under this Act is to be registered and maintained;
(b) those persons who may have access to information so notified; and
(c) the responsibilities of the police to provide information and to co—operate with others in using information so notified for the protection of the public, including, but not confined to, responsibilities for providing information and advice to members of the public and to statutory and voluntary bodies.
(2) In addition to any regulations made under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, from time to time and following consultation, issue guidance on good practice concerning the use of information notified to the police under this Act in child protection activities, including activities undertaken by, or in collaboration with, local area child protection committees and others.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) above shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by a resolution of each House before being made.'

Mr. Michael: The new clauses address a gaping hole in the Bill. Two provisions are missing from the legislation. First, there is no provision for a paedophile register, which was promised when the Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech. Secondly, although the Bill specifies that offenders must notify their address or change of address to the police, it does not say what the police should do with the information.
We had some good debates in Committee, and I had hoped that Government amendments would be tabled to cover the deficiencies. I am disappointed that no such amendments have been tabled. Unless we get the Bill right, including the provisions in new clauses 2 and 3, we will leave children at risk. There is also a danger that we will leave the police at risk.
The Bill would require those who have been convicted of the offences specified in the Bill to register their addresses with the police, but it contains no system for


handling the information. New clause 2 would place a duty on the Home Secretary to maintain a register of the information supplied to the police under the Bill. We have fine-tuned our suggestions after the debates in Committee and discussions with police officers at all levels. The simplest way to introduce the register, without extra bureaucracy and cost and new software, is to include the information in the police national computer. New clause 2 would allow the information to be kept on the police national computer, and it is sufficiently flexible to deal with developments.
New clause 3 is needed to fill a gap in the Bill, by saying what should be done with the information when it is provided. There has been much debate concerning how information about the addresses of offenders, especially those who have been convicted of paedophile offences, should be dealt with. There is a problem in deciding whether it should be generally available, available only in specific circumstances, or retained as confidential, for the use of the police alone.
A variety of organisations hold the strong view that such procedures need to be part of a system directed at protecting children, which will ensure that the information gets to the places where it is needed in order to achieve that objective.
In Committee, we suggested a structure that would make that responsibility clear and, while requiring the Home Secretary to produce a code of practice, would also allow for informal advice. The view that is held in several quarters is clear. The chief constables, who have spoken to me and to my hon. Friends, and those who represent police officers say that, unless a structure is provided in the Bill, they could be left unprotected.
There are two ways in which that could come about. If information is handed to the police station, what is to be done with it? Yes, it may be fed into the police national computer. We suggest that structure in new clause 2. But should the information also be distributed more widely to members of the public?
The police could run into danger on two grounds. First, they could provide information that led to an individual becoming a target—perhaps an innocent person, as a result of mistaken identity. Events could flow from the fact that the police had made available information given to them under the Bill. That could lead to criticism and challenge, perhaps in a legal sense, and certainly by the public.
The second element of challenge could occur if the police did not provide information—if, for instance, information arose about the identity of an individual who might be in an area, especially in relation to informal contact with children, a contact less likely to be covered by the provisions of the Police Bill, which is also now under discussion in Parliament. If the police had not provided such information, they could be criticised for not having done so.
It seems to me that we are running away from those problems unless we put into the Bill a careful, but flexible, structure allowing for a balanced, reasoned and measured approach to this difficult and problematic area. That is why, in new clause 3, we suggest that there should be further consultation. We do not want to jump at it, which is why we made our suggestion in that particular form. Following that consultation, the Home Secretary should

make regulations in respect of the provision of the information. Clearly, parallel arrangements for Scotland would also be needed.
We suggest that the regulations should involve not a code of practice but the minimum registration necessary to tie into the legislation a common-sense system and good practice in child protection. That is the way to avoid all the arguments of recent years about practices such as intrusive surveillance. There is nothing about that in legislation, so arguments have taken place on what the police are and are not entitled to do under the common law. That has built up into a major conflict, evidence of which we have seen recently in the House of Lords, the press and the other media—all because the problem had not been tackled at an earlier stage. It would be all the more sensible, therefore, for the House to recognise that there is something that needs to be dealt with, and to deal with it in a reasoned and measured way today.
The Home Secretary, following consultation, would put minimal regulations in place to cover the three points in subsection (1) of new clause 3, the first of which is:
the means whereby information notified to the police under this Act is to be registered and maintained".
From the point of view of the police and all the professionals, as I believe the Minister has acknowledged in discussion, that would be done by holding the information in a systematic way on the police national computer.
Secondly, new clause 3(1) refers to
those persons who may have access to information so notified".
That could be as simple as specifying the police and those whom the Home Secretary, on the advice of the police, has authorised to have access. The regulations do not need to be complicated.

Thirdly—

Sir Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: May I finish this point first?
Thirdly, the new clause covers
the responsibilities of the police to provide information and to co-operate with others in using information so notified for the protection of the public".
It describes those responsibilities as
including, but not confined to, responsibilities for providing information and advice to members of the public and to statutory and voluntary bodies.
We refer to "advice and information", because information without advice can be dangerous. That is the reasoned way of approaching the problem.
We also allow for information to be provided to the statutory and voluntary bodies and to members of the public where appropriate. That adds up to a measured and rational approach to the ultimate objective of protecting children. Our aim is to provide a simple framework. I do not think that the regulations would need to go far beyond those words; perhaps those words are adequate in themselves.
Saying that the matter would be dealt with by regulation allows a period for consultation by the Home Secretary. The Association of Chief Police Officers wants to ensure that the regulations do not go too far and become binding and restrictive.

Sir Wyn Roberts: rose—

Mr. Michael: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I am explaining the new clause. I shall certainly give way to him as soon as I have finished, but these things hang together.
That is all that would be contained in the regulations made under this part of the Bill. It would satisfy the desire of many who have spoken from the police side—to keep the requirements in the Bill simple—while allowing a hook in the legislation for the good practice and the protection of children that are our objectives.
Against that background, subsection (2) of new clause 3 says that, in addition to the regulations,
the Secretary of State may, from time to time and following consultation, issue guidance on good practice concerning the use of information notified to the police under this Act in child protection activities, including activities undertaken by, or in collaboration with, local area child protection committees and others." 
That means that the activity that chief constables, superintendents and the police in general wish to undertake—using the information for the protection of children—can be carried out in a flexible way, but still within the ambit of the Bill.
Having explained the intention of the new clause, I give way to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts).

Sir Wyn Roberts: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that there is no easy ready-made answer to the problems that he has mentioned. But is he not mixing oil and water by prescribing both regulations and guidelines as to good practice? Surely we shall not know what good practice is until some time has elapsed.

Mr. Michael: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's making that point, which is a weak one. First, it is because good practice will develop that it should be covered by guidance rather than in the regulations. That is precisely why we framed the new clause in that way.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility in Wales in connection with the Children Act 1989, so he will know that that is precisely how that Act—I believe that he played some part in it—makes the distinction between requirements that need to be defined very simply and those that need to be dealt with sensibly, but in a structured way that recognises the need for co-operation between different agencies, which often work under different pieces of legislation.
I want to underline the simplicity of our proposal. There should be a hook in the legislation: a legislative basis for the good practice and co-operation that everyone working in this connection wants. Our proposals avoid the introduction of excessive legal requirements or complex statutory instruments and keep the system flexible while making clear the intention of Parliament that there will be

a paedophile register and that it will be used to protect children. That is important, because neither of those points is made clear in the Bill.
I call in aid the fact that chief constables have said that they are not clear about their responsibilities and those of officers under their control as a result of the legislation. The decisions would not be about how information on the police national computer is dealt with, because that is not how the information reaches the police; it reaches them in the first instance by an offender who has been identified under the Bill coming into a police station and presenting his new address.
Unless we make it clear in the legislation that there is a system for handling that information, the Home Secretary may advise that it should be registered on the police national computer, but the police will also have to decide what their other responsibilities are under other statutes and in terms of the common law. I cannot understand why that point has not been accepted. Indeed, I thought that the Minister responded positively on it in Committee. I had expected him to come up with a new clause, one that might have been better than anything we could draft—although I cannot see anything wrong with the style and simplicity of our new clause.
The Police Federation is worried that its members may not be protected unless those issues are dealt with in the legislation. Advice from the Home Secretary and decisions by the chief constable on how to handle information may provide useful guidance much of the time, but they will not answer the question about individual responsibility, which may devolve to the sergeant on duty at the time that information is given, or to the inspector or superintendent. Individuals will have to take decisions, and if there is no guidance for them, and no system established through which they should operate, there will be a glaring hole in the Bill.
What are the expectations? The result of a survey of police forces in England and Wales undertaken by the chief constable of Gloucestershire was published recently. It shows that the Hampshire constabulary scheme—a multi-agency project between police, probation and social services, in which information is gathered on individuals and the risk assessed—provides information to local schools, for instance. The purpose is to raise awareness about specific issues that affect those schools and to ensure that information and advice on how to use it are available for those who have to deal with children.
The report makes it clear that there have been occasions on which the media and the public have obtained inaccurate information, leading to misunderstanding, anxiety and even violence. People may take different views about an offender being targeted, but we should surely be concerned about protecting innocent people. That is why it is important for there to be a sensible, ordered and accurate way of dealing with information.
There are other examples of the development of good practice. Merseyside and Lincolnshire are cited in the report as having well documented protocols. The Merseyside protocol covers the sharing of information; the assessment of risk; devising strategic plans to minimise risk; agreed implementation plans; and the monitoring and review of the way in which those systems work. That is logical and sensible. Risk assessment is the first step in protecting children. That is surely the basis of a sensible way of dealing with the matter.


It is curious that there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that information is dealt with in that way. The new clause would facilitate the reasoned, sensible and rational approach that has been exemplified by the practice of several police forces.
8.15 pm
The report by Mr. Butler, the chief constable of Gloucestershire, also raises legal points about the Data Protection Act 1988 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and civil liberties are without doubt a major concern for all forces. It says:
At the moment there is conflicting legal advice on whether disclosing information to the public is illegal.
It also says that some forces have been advised that it is, and others that it is not. On the basis of what is legal, forces have to decide what is responsible and what is their duty.
The report says:
The Data Protection Act allows for the disclosure of information to 'prevent a crime', however, one force suggests that it is unlawful to have a policy which utilises this provision in every case. It is a fine line of assessment and due consideration must be given to each individual case.
We want something in the Bill to ensure that precisely such consideration can be given.
The report's conclusion is important:
Any warning system must form part of the overall strategy for managing the risk by paedophiles. The aims must be to facilitate information sharing, ongoing risk assessment and a variety of measures, preventative, proactive, investigative, tailored to specific circumstances. Positive steps must be taken at an early stage to track and control the activities of paedophiles, particularly predatory offenders. Any warning system needs to 'follow the offender' and be reassessed and updated as necessary. Decisions should be made on a multi agency basis following documented guidelines, taking into account all the issues raised in this report.
I do not see how the legislation can be adequate unless it allows those recommendations to be implemented. The new clauses would do precisely that.
Other comments have been made by a variety of organisations. The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales expressed concern about the effects on general disclosure and highlighted the difficulties that can arise from it, underlining the need for the continuation and development of present inter-agency arrangements, although it went on to say that it might be useful to develop guidance in the light of experience, once the legislation is enacted. That is precisely what the new clauses are designed to do. The association refers to increasing international travel and communication and repeats its view about the need to consider a European database of paedophiles and their movements.
The Association of Chief Police Officers issued a helpful statement. It said:
In our view, the way forward, based on existing good police practice across the country is for:
proper co-ordinated risk assessment of each case, in conjunction with Social Services, Probation and other agencies where appropriate including, for example, Education Authorities.
The new clauses would allow information and advice to be made available to agencies, voluntary organisations and, where appropriate, members of the public, in a flexible system that allows for guidance and the development of best practice.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, on behalf of the Children's Charities Consortium, underlined the difficulties. It said:
At present, the Bill does not include a mechanism for continuing registration of an individual where it is considered there is a continuing risk to children.
It also pointed out that the Bill does not deal with the need for
an interface of this register with other registers which record information
and that, because of the Bill's sensitivities and the need for thorough working, it should include an inbuilt review process. We debated that matter in Committee, and I consider it necessary, but it has not been included. That makes it all the more important that we have a system of guidance from the Home Secretary, based on advice and consultation, as we have suggested.
The NSPCC report—it is interesting that such statements come from organisations that are concerned first and foremost with the protection of children—continued:
The information … must be of actual use in protecting children and may benefit from the inclusion of a 'domestic profile' to help combat registration of mere postal addresses.
We are addressing the handling of all that information in a co-operative framework.
The report—again, it is important to note that this is the view of those whose prime concern is the protection of children—continued:
Open public access to a similar register in the United States has sometimes led to incidents of vigilantism that may merely encourage a 'registered' sex offender to disappear.
The report stated:
there must be a process in place that will control how information is used
to make sure that it is used properly. It concluded:
In short, the Consortium supports the intentions behind the Bill but feel strongly that it must be co-ordinated with other measures.
The report argued strongly:
The Sex Offenders Bill is not a 'magic wand' but can play a part in what needs to be a sophisticated, co-ordinated and workable response to those that seek to harm our children.
The new clauses are based on our conversations with organisations that believe that we need to do much more to protect children and want a paedophile register that works, but appreciate the sensitivities that the police and child protection organisations must show. We have designed proposals that will tie simply into legislation a measure to allow a flexible response based on risk and the protection of children. I commend the new clauses, which I am convinced will make the Bill effective legislation for the protection of children. Without such changes, there will be a black hole at its heart. Further legislation will be needed to fill the gap, and we shall all regret not having amended the Bill when we had the opportunity.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I support the calls for a code of good practice. The issue must be addressed because it lies at the heart of the Bill. I am surprised that the Government have not tabled an amendment; in Committee, they suggested that they might.
I support the excellent and strong arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I do not understand how we can leave such a provision out. The Government have not made a sufficient contribution to the debate. Although the Bill calls for changes of address to be notified, it does not say what should be done with the information. We must know more about the reasons for keeping addresses. Registers and databases protect no one; it is what is done with them that will protect children. There must be guidance and direction to the police on what decisions and action should follow from the knowledge that they are given by the new notification requirements.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the use to which the register will be put must be carefully controlled so that it is primarily used in the prevention of crime and not open to abuse that leads to vigilante victimisation of offenders and their families—as happened in the tragic case in Manchester, reported at the weekend, in which an innocent pensioner was mistaken for a child abuser whose name and photograph had appeared in the Manchester Evening News. Notification must not be regarded as an additional punishment, but as a preventive measure. Information should be made available to other Government Departments and bodies that already keep lists to protect children.
The answer to a question that I asked about the number of names on the paedophile intelligence database held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service reveals that about 25,000 known or suspected paedophiles are on its list. That is one of six lists held by Government and public bodies. We do not know the number of names on the Department of Health consultancy service index or the Department of Education's list 99. Obviously, we are dealing with a large number. We know from another question answered by the Government that some 100,000 paedophiles are at large in the community. All that information should be properly assembled.
It is amazing that the word "register" is omitted from the Bill. In public parlance, it is known as the paedophile Bill and it is generally believed that a register will be kept. The Bill does not mention one; it is as if there were no such thing.
The publicity surrounding the Bill has raised expectations, with calls for the introduction of an American-style Megan's law, whereby there would be public notification when a paedophile moves into an area. I urge that we do not go down that path. We should provide a coherent framework of who should be notified and in what circumstances. Area child protection committees should be informed and have access to information on paedophiles when they feel that it is necessary in their work. If we do not make things properly clear, I fear that we will find that we have a Megan's law in practice, if not in theory.
There has been private publication of the names of offenders in Australia and New Zealand, and there is talk of a similar list being produced in Britain. That would be against the law on the rehabilitation of offenders, and it would be bound to be full of errors that could lead to innocent people being attacked. The Bill's purpose is to protect children, but it could end up having the exactly opposite effect—innocent children and families could

become the targets of arson attacks, as has happened in the past because the Government have not grasped the nettle and said how the police should act.
I support what has been said about the view of the police: that they need strong guidance so that they can work with discretion, but within carefully laid down limits so that they know where they stand. Even if the Government have not been able to table amendments in this House, I hope that they will say that, before proceedings on the Bill finish in another place, a Government amendment will be tabled to give proper attention to the matter. In the meantime, I support the new clauses.

Mr. John Hutton: Like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I support the new clause moved so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) was right: there are no simple solutions to some of the problems.
The new clauses are important because they are reasonable and sensible and would strengthen the Bill by focusing it more closely on the central issue: how better to protect children in particular, and the public, from the predatory and criminal instincts of serial child sex offenders. That is what we must consider tonight. The Bill, though a significant step forward, fails to address the matter coherently.
I, too, have seen the Association of Chief Police Officers survey, which was deposited in the Library today. It makes fascinating reading. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the Government intend to do about the existing practice of police forces in revealing information to local people, area child protection committees and other organisations about the whereabouts of known child sex offenders. That is clearly happening already, but it is happening without the benefit of a statutory framework to regulate the release of such information to the public and other organisations. That is not satisfactory, and I am sure that the Government do not regard it as satisfactory. The survey mentioned 14 police forces that admit that they release such information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, a police force that releases such information risks civil action on several grounds. That is not acceptable.
I strongly support new clause 3 because it focuses on the Bill's central issue, the protection of children. The key principle recognised in new clause 3 is that there may be some circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the police carefully and sensitively to notify the public of the whereabouts of a serious paedophile offender.
Although the issues are complex, and range from protecting important civil liberties and the principle of rehabilitating child sex offenders wherever possible to the role of the media, the issue on which we should focus is how to protect children. If we were honest with ourselves and asked whether, as parents, we would want to be told if a serious child sex offender had moved into our neighbourhood, the answer would be yes. The ACPO survey reflects the fact that we might then be better able to protect our children from the criminal instincts of child sex offenders.
If, as parents, we would want that information at our disposal so that we could look after our children as they played in local streets and parks, the Bill must provide for


it. If it does not, its principle and effect will be undermined; its purpose will be weakened and its focus will be disjointed. That would be in no one's interests, which is why many Opposition Members are surprised that the Government have not indicated their intention to legislate to ensure that the Bill covers that important issue.
I hope that the Minister will say something more positive when he winds up the debate tonight. This is an important issue and we cannot run away from it. Our constituents who are parents would want this information at their disposal, and we must reflect their wish in a sensible way. Like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East, I strongly oppose the more public disclosure of information, such as we have seen in some countries. The information must be disclosed carefully.
The use of leaflets, flyers and newspapers printing photographs and names and addresses is not the way to proceed. I am interested to note that the ACPO survey reflected police concern about that practice. It is clear from the survey of police forces around the country that most police forces believe that the controlled and sensible release of information about the whereabouts of child sex offenders may reduce their offending profile, which means that our children would be better protected. For me, that is the only issue.
8.30 pm
If there is a role for the controlled release of information to certain members of the public, particularly parents and relevant organisations, it should be recognised in the Bill, because it is the best way forward. We cannot pretend that the problem will go away, or that we can sit on the huge register of information that the Bill will collect if we do not set out in the Bill how the use of that information to protect the public is to be regulated.
I hope that the Minister will say something positive about these sensible and reasonable new clauses. We are used to being told that there is some technical deficiency in our amendments. The Minister may have some technical concerns about the drafting of the new clauses, but that is a secondary issue. The important issue is the principle of wider community or public notification of the whereabouts of sex offenders. There is huge popular support in the country for giving parents in such serious situations the right to know the whereabouts of child sex offenders. If it is done sensibly, having discussed the issue with the chief constable and interested organisations, it is the road that we should take.

Mr. Michael Clapham: New clauses 2 and 3 lie at the heart of the Bill. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about Megan's law and what could happen in terms of vigilante action if we take that route.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): indicated assent.

Mr. Clapham: I am pleased to see the Minister nod. I have the impression that he has taken that point on board. It is important to have an effective interface between the register and people working in the community to protect children. The Minister will be aware

that, in most areas, child protection teams work closely with the police to ensure that section 1 offenders are closely monitored. Whenever a section 1 offender appears in a new area, the police either inform social services or vice versa. In that way, the necessary protection is provided in the area covered by that child protection team and police force. We could use that model to ensure that the information on the register is applied effectively.
If social services, who have the register, are informed by the police that a section 1 offender has moved into their area, they already ensure that the register is made available to probation officers and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The voluntary sector can then work together to ensure that it can effectively protect children in a community. That is the way to proceed.
If we were to decide that informing the public would be the best way to proceed, the result could be mob rule. There are plenty of examples of that. We have read this week of examples in Manchester, Stirling and the midlands. We must avoid that route. Last week, an article in The Independent suggested that the Home Secretary may be thinking about divulging the names of paedophiles to the community. That would be the wrong way to proceed. We must use the route that is already established. The interface must be with social services; the link must be with the voluntary services, the NSPCC and probation officers, who work with social services.
It is important that the Minister should say how we shall use the register effectively to inform the community generally, but in a sensitive way so that we do not create the over-reaction that we have already experienced. We must ensure that it is an effective way to protect children in the community.
In Committee, I described the horrific constituency case of a young woman who lost her first husband and formed a relationship that led to marriage with a second man, only to find that the marriage had taken place because the man wanted to get to the children. If we ensure that the register works as I have described, such cases would not occur. When the man moved into the area, social services would have been informed by the police and monitored him to ensure that he did not come into contact with children and was no danger to them. Had the woman wished to proceed with the marriage, social services would have informed her about the man's past. That would have protected those children adequately without informing the public and creating the mob rule that we have read about this week. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Mrs. Llin Golding: The Bill must be of use in protecting children, or it is worth nothing. I have sat through many Criminal Justice Bills in which we have returned repeatedly, when dealing with children and child abuse, to adjust and correct previous legislation. It has taken us years to make progress because we did not get it right the first time.
I ask the Minister to consider these two new clauses seriously, especially new clause 3, because it would save our returning to the issue time after time after time. I do not want to do that, so I ask the Minister to consider the matter very seriously and give the new clause his support.

Mr. Kirkhope: This has been a very useful debate; it follows a debate that we had in Committee and discussions in which I have participated to try to find a solution to these matters.
I shall discuss new clause 2 before I come to the main meat of the matter. In earlier debates on the Bill, I have made it clear that I do not believe that there is a need to create a separate register of sex offender information acquired under the Bill. As I told the Committee, the information that will be collected will be stored on the Phoenix database on the police national computer, and it will be instantly accessible by all forces and by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is not intended to create a separate register, although it has been convenient to talk in terms of a register when discussing the Bill's purposes.
I am not sure what placing a duty on the Secretary of State would achieve. The police already store information on offenders, including sex offenders, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) knows. The Bill will enable the police to hold up-to-date addresses on convicted sex offenders. We have discussed the uses to which that information might be put, and I have no doubt that the police will develop strategies for ensuring that those officers who need to be aware of it are aware of it.
In my submission, it is unnecessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State, and I hope that in due course the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will be able to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Kirkhope: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my arguments to cover new clause 3, because the arguments relating to the two new clauses are linked. He may want to intervene later.
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the case for new clause 3, as I have listened with enormous care in Committee and earlier tonight to other hon. Members who have spoken. There is nothing between us in our desire that the police should make the best possible use of the information that will become available to them under the Bill, or in our recognition that such use must be careful and responsible. I agree with the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) that use must be responsible.
I note that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has adjusted his approach since we last considered these matters in Committee—he knows that we have discussed them since then—but I remain unhappy about the approach that he proposes in these two new clauses. We need to clear up many points.
The police already share information with those who need to be aware of it—head teachers, school governors, social services departments and so on. There is no reason to believe that the operational case for such sharing in appropriate circumstances is not fully recognised by the police, and there is no legal barrier to it—for example, under data protection legislation—when such disclosures take place for the purpose that we are discussing; the prevention or detection of crime.
The police have also, very occasionally, and with due caution, disclosed information to individuals. I emphasise that they have done so cautiously, for all the reasons that were fully explained by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone and me in Committee.
There is the danger of vigilantism, and some tragic cases have reminded us that, when individuals take the law into their own hands, the wholly innocent sometimes get hurt. There is also the danger of polluting evidence, so that the sex offender who offends again escapes justice because of the difficulty of receiving a fair trial. There is the danger that, if we prevent the offender from rehabilitating himself, we heighten the risk of further offences. There is the danger of driving the offender underground by providing such a massive disincentive to registration under the Bill that the police lose sight of the people with whom they need to keep in closest contact.
Those are all sound reasons for caution, which were mentioned in Committee and earlier in tonight's debate. I argue that the police do not need a provision in the Bill to encourage or allow them to share information, or a provision to warn them of the need for caution. I do not believe that we need the first part of new clause 3, which would not advance us beyond the present position unless we were to go substantially further and effectively deal with some of the more detailed—and far more difficult—issues which lie behind the second part of the new clause.
Subsection (2) of new clause 3 is about guidance to the police on the type of situation in which the police my decide to use the powers they already have to share information. As I have said previously, I fully accept that guidance in that area may prove necessary; but I believe that it is premature to consider the precise form that it must take.
Leading police officers have told us—I believe that they are absolutely right—that any developments in warning systems must form part of an overall strategy for managing the risk posed by paedophiles. They have argued that this needs to cover information sharing between agencies—hon. Members have referred to the need to develop such co-ordination—on-going risk assessment and a variety of preventive and investigative measures, tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. I believe that they are absolutely correct.
In Committee, I undertook to consider the suggestion that the Bill should contain powers for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice. I have considered it extremely carefully, and discussions have taken place to discover what might be done to fulfil the obligation that I undertook in Committee. On full and further reflection, and in the light of the arguments that the police have made to us, I have decided that that would not be appropriate, but that we should respond to the police invitation for the development of a broader strategy. That suggests that we need to consider with the police and the other relevant agencies, in the light of current practice throughout the country, what form such a strategy might take. It would have to build on the substantial advances that have been made in inter-agency co-operation to counter child abuse.
I remind the House of my commitment made at Stockholm last summer. The Stockholm conference showed that the success of the Children Act 1989 and our genuine multi-agency, co-operative approach were proving to be a model for the rest of the world.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the important part that voluntary agencies can play. I wonder whether he was aware that the NSPCC intends to issue a booklet tomorrow, giving advice to parents and others as to what action to take if a paedophile moves into their


area. I hope that he will welcome it and commend the NSPCC on the part that it has played. The NSPCC says that much stronger and more practical guidance needs to be given to everyone concerned.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am not aware of the details of that booklet, but the NSPCC has been extremely positive and helpful, not only when we went to Stockholm, but in its general attitude to the need to tackle child abuse. It shows why it is necessary to be cautious in discussing the new clauses.
Inter-agency co-operation does not preclude the idea of guidance, or a code of practice, at some date, and we shall return to the idea if it appears appropriate, although we are mindful of the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers that a Home Office circular is likely to provide a better and more flexible way to proceed.
This is a difficult and sensitive area. I shall take an example of the type of difficult and sensitive situation that any guidance may have to address. It is not difficult to think of cases in which parents of young children might argue that they have a right to know of the offending history of an individual who has been housed near them. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned that point. We may have considerable sympathy with those parents, but it is clear in many such situations that, rather than disclosing information, with all the fear and possible violence that might follow, it may be better for the offender to be housed in another locality, perhaps away from schools or young families. It may, however, be a case where the authorities have no influence over the locality in which the offender chooses to live, but where there is reasonable confidence that offending will not recur, provided that the individual is not ostracised or isolated.
Those are the sorts of difficult practical situations that may well arise, where careful—probably inter-agency—decisions would need to be taken. Any guidance that might be issued should allow the fullest possible flexibility in responding to the circumstances of individual cases, such as the example that I have just given, and not constrain the police or anyone else in trying to reach the best operational decisions.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. Does he accept the principle that there may be circumstances in which the public should be informed of the whereabouts of a serious child sex offender?

Mr. Kirkhope: I have already told the House that, if it were treated in a cautious and sensitive manner, such a situation might arise, but I am nervous about the hon. Gentleman's reference to the public. I have given examples where the police, acting cautiously and sensitively, provided such information to an individual member of the public, or perhaps one or two members of the public. It is a complex matter, which is why I am in difficulties over the new clauses, worthy though their intent may be.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We fully appreciate the difficulties that my hon. Friend describes. Will he take it from me

that there is widespread public concern about the timing of the implementation of the measure? Can he reassure us by saying when the strategy that he has described, and other developments that might follow the passage of the Bill, will be implemented?

Mr. Kirkhope: We are extremely anxious for the legislation to be on the statute book and operating as soon as possible. With the requirements that it places on sex offenders, it will be of enormous help to the public. There is a clear case for the Bill, which we will try to get through as soon as possible, with the help of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
I have outlined the way in which we intend to take matters forward. I cannot go further this evening. I have made our position clear to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that, in the interests of such an important measure, he will not press the new clause.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. There is no difference between us on the need for the information to be dealt with in a way that allows it to be used effectively for the purpose that Parliament intends.
The Minister has engaged with the issues personally, and taken seriously the points made in Committee. I know that he has gone into the issues more fully following the Committee stage. There is no suggestion that he has not taken the debate seriously or that he has failed to take seriously his responsibility to move forward.
The Minister said that the police "share information"—I quote his words—but the information does not have to be notified to the police. After the passage of the Bill, after people who have committed offences specified in the Bill have been sentenced, they will have to report to the police their address or addresses and any subsequent change of address. The Bill, however, does not state what is to be done with that information. That is the problem.
Much of the Minister's speech will read as a speech in favour of new clause 3. He says that his view is based on advice from the police that the way forward is consideration with the police of a strategy to protect children. We agree with that. The new clause makes provision for that and links the information that will be provided under the Bill with the development of such a strategy.

Mr. Kirkhope: The point about the police is important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should do everything that we can to assist the police in such difficult work. Will he accept that, in our discussions with chief police officers, they have made it clear that they do not want a code of practice in the form that the hon. Gentleman suggests?

Mr. Michael: I do not think the view expressed by chief police officers is so clear. They have made it clear that they do not want a code of practice, but may I point out to the Minister that he is referring to the amendment in Committee, not to the new clause. The new clause does not require a code of practice; it requires a hook in the Bill, followed by the issuing of guidance based on the pattern of consultation, discussion and development of good practice for which the Minister was arguing.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is taking that position. In a letter on behalf of ACPO, the ACPO crime committee states that its position
would be to maintain maximum flexibility in the arrangements for exchanging and using information but, at the same time, to take an early opportunity to consider seeking national guidance on some limited areas. To achieve this goal, it is believed that the mechanism of a Home Office Circular would be the most effective option.
The crime committee makes it clear that those considerations are not easily achieved through a code of practice.

Mr. Michael: Indeed. The letter to which the Minister refers was sent to him and copied to me as a result of our debates in Committee. That is why the new clause does not include reference to a code of practice. It allows for guidance to be given through a circular from the Home Secretary. It meets the requirements of the letter, which does not refer to our new clauses, as I have pointed out in discussion with the president of ACPO and the chairman of the crime committee, who wrote the letter.

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about the way in which matters might develop in due course—on a broad basis, we might examine inter-agency co-operation and so on. Does he accept that that is a clear position, from our point of view?

Mr. Michael: It is a clear position, from the Minister's point of view, and nothing prevents that approach being taken if our new clause is accepted. The new clause allows specifically for that form of guidance and for the development of good practice. It allows for inter-agency working and for the flexibility that ACPO wants. It also deals with the concerns of the superintendents and the Police Federation that their members may not be protected unless there is provision such as new clause 3 makes.
I take the Minister's point that new clause 2 gives a power that the Home Secretary already has. I also take it that information will be handled in the way that we sought in new clause 2. The problem is that the Bill has a big hole in it. It requires information to be notified to the police, but does not state what the police are supposed to do with it. The new clause does not contradict anything that the Minister has said, but the Bill must specify how the information is to be used.
As I see it, it is not enough to deal with the matter simply through Home Office circulars or through informal advice. That advice and guidance must be hooked into the Bill or we shall face all the problems associated with the arguments about intrusive surveillance: long and complicated debate about the powers and responsibilities of the police and arguments about the powers of the Home Secretary, followed by legislation to clarify the matter and, I suggest, a much less flexible arrangement than would be allowed if my new clauses were agreed.
I accept that it is possible to establish a register—as suggested in new clause 2—without the new clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

USE OF INFORMATION ON THE REGISTER OF SEX OFFENDERS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, following consultation, make regulations in respect of—

(a) the means whereby information notified to the police under this Act is to be registered and maintained;
(b) those persons who may have access to information so notified; and
(c) the responsibilities of the police to provide information and to co-operate with others in using information so notified for the protection of the public, including, but not confined to, responsibilities for providing information and advice to members of the public and to statutory and voluntary bodies.
(2) In addition to any regulations made under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, from time to time and following consultation, issue guidance on good practice concerning the use of information notified to the police under this Act in child protection activities, including activities undertaken by, or in collaboration with, local area child protection committees and others.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) above shall be laid before Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by a resolution of each House before being made.'—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 155.

Division No. 84][8.59 pm

AYES


Alton, David
Graham, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Grocott, Bruce


Barnes, Harry
Gunnell, John


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Harvey, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Home Robertson, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Hoyle, Doug


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hutton, John


Caborn, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Chidgey, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Clapham, Michael
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livingstone, Ken


Coffey, Ms Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Corston, Ms Jean
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Maclennan, Robert


(Perth Kinross)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Dafis, Cynog
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Rt Hon Don
Meale, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H
Michael, Alun


Dowd, Jim
Milburn, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Ennis, Jeff
Morley, Elliot


Faulds, Andrew
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A
Pendry, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L






Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Timms, Stephen


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Alan
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Straw, Jack
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mrs. Jane Kennedy and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Alexander, Richard
Hawkins, Nick


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Hawksley, Warren


Arbuthnot, James
Heald, Oliver


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Hendry, Charles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Baldry, Tony
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Batiste, Spencer
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Booth, Hartley
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Bowis, John
Jessel, Toby


Brandreth, Gyles
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bright, Sir Graham
Knapman, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Burns, Simon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Butler, Peter
Knox, Sir David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Kynoch, George


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Legg, Barry


(Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lidington, David


Coe, Sebastian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Congdon, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Conway, Derek
Luff, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
MacKay, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Couchman, James
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cran, James
Malone, Gerald


Currie, Mrs Edwina

Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)
Merchant, Piers


Day, Stephen
Moate, Sir Roger


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Duncan, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Duncan Smith, Iain
Neubert, Sir Michael



Dunn, Bob
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Durant, Sir Anthony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Oppenheim, Phillip


Elletson, Harold
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Paice, James


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Faber, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Pawsey, James


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forman, Nigel
Porter, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


French, Douglas
Richards, Rod


Fry, Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Gallie, Phil
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Rowe, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Wells, Bowen


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)



Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Matthew Carrington.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

EFFECT OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'before' and insert
'as soon as is practicable and in any event no later than'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 27, at end insert
'or, where he also uses one or more other addresses, each of those addresses.'.

Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 28, leave out 'before' and insert
'as soon as is practicable and in any event no later than'.

Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

Amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 32, at end insert 'or addresses'.

Government amendment No. 42.

Amendment No. 17, in page 4, leave out line 3.

Amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 7, leave out 'or'.

Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 8, at end insert—
'; or
(c) if he lives or intends to live abroad, by sending a written notification of his decision to live abroad and his home address or addresses to a police station in his local police area or, in the case of a person who is living abroad, in the local police area in the United Kingdom in which he last lived.'

Amendment No. 20, in page 4, line 14, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.

Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 18, at end insert
'or, if he lives abroad, the police area in which his last home in the United Kingdom was situated.

Government amendment No. 43.

Mr. Michael: Amendment No. 13 deals with the question of how quickly information about an offender's address or change of address should be notified. The Bill allows 14 days, but in some circumstances, especially if the offender is devious and dangerous, 14 days is a


considerable time. That is why we suggest that the wording in the Bill should b e replaced by the words
as soon as is practicable and in any event no later than

14 days.

Amendment No. 14 would require an offender to notify each of his addresses if he uses more than one, rather than just a home address. The other amendments follow that logic.

Amendment No. 41 would place a requirement on offenders who live abroad. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendment No. 41 is the Government amendment that deals with that issue, although not in a totally satisfactory way. Our amendment No. 17 deals with people who live part of the time in this country and part of the time abroad, and would require notification so as to keep track of their circumstances, especially when other members of the family or extended families are involved in both homes. That important area is not covered in the Bill.

Amendment No. 19 would make provision for those who live abroad all the time or part of the time. We suggest that, if an offender lives or intends to live abroad, he should meet the requirements of the Bill
by sending a written notification of his decision to live abroad and his home address or addresses to a police station in his local police area or, in the case of a person who is living only abroad, in the police area in the United Kingdom in which he last lived.

The amendment gives a sensible, commonsense definition of what an individual would have to do, but avoids the gap in the treatment of offenders that would be created if offenders who moved abroad did not have to notify the police of their address. It provides sufficient flexibility so that responsibility can be placed on the offender. If someone moves abroad and does not return, failure to notify is not a problem. The amendment places the onus on the offender, and puts a residual power in the hands of the police should someone move abroad and then move backwards and forwards without due respect for the provisions of the Bill and the requirements placed on him as a result of his committing an offence that is identified in the schedules. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Kirkhope: I sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for the police to have up-to-date information at the earliest possible opportunity, which I believe is being sought in amendments Nos 13 and 15. I do not, however, believe that that approach would work in practice. What would be the earliest practical moment is a highly uncertain basis for the establishment of a criminal offence. It would put a burden on the courts to decide whether it would have been practicable for an offender to register sooner than he did, even if he registered within the 14-day limit. I do not believe that we should give the courts, the police or the prosecutors such an uncertain issue to decide, or make criminal liability dependent on that outcome. Fourteen days is a reasonable time; it is not excessive, and the public would not be provided with any further protection through the proposed changes.
9.15 pm
Nor do I believe that the requirement in amendments Nos. 14 and 16 to register all addresses that an offender

visits—even for a period of one night—is practical. The police would be swamped with too much information. Moreover, I am not sure what the point is of recording an address that the offender has visited once and may never visit again. Nevertheless, I recognise the concern expressed in Committee that focusing the registration requirements solely on the offender's main residence might be insufficient.
I have already said that we cannot attach registration to every address that an offender visits, but we have decided to extend the registration requirement to any other address at which an offender spends 14 days or more in any 12-month period. That is the basis of our amendments. Such a measure will catch both long periods away from home at a single address—such as away-from-home working and holiday periods—and regular visits to another address for shorter periods which have a cumulative effect. Our proposals are contained in amendments Nos. 40 to 43.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 21, which seek to place offenders under an obligation to report overseas addresses, suffer from the same difficulties of impracticality and enforcement as the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in respect of notifying addresses. We debated whether that would be possible at an earlier stage, and I made it clear then that, because the police would have no basis on which to determine whether an offence had been committed, they would not be able to prove where an offender had been when he was abroad. The matter has been carefully considered, but I am afraid that I do not see any way in which we can impose a registration requirement on those who leave, or have left, the United Kingdom. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Michael: I am disappointed by the Minister's response to what I felt were constructive amendments, but I do not intend to delay the House by pressing the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 40, in page 3, leave out line 31 and insert 'this section;'.

No. 41, in page 3, line 32, at end insert
'or
(c) his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under this section,'.

No. 42, in page 3, line 33, leave out
'or, as the case may be, the effect of that change'

and insert
,'the effect of that change or, as the case may be, the address of those premises'.

No. 43, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
' "qualifying period" means—

(a) a period of 14 days; or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which (taken together) amount to 14 days.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Clause 4

YOUNG SEX OFFENDERS

Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) Subject to subsection (1B) below, this Part does not apply to a person who is under 16 on the relevant date.
(1B) In the case of a person falling within section 1(1)(a) or (b) above who is under 16 on the relevant date, the court may direct that this Part shall have effect.'.
This important amendment deals with whether children should be required to register. It amends the Bill so that notification requirements would not apply to a person aged under 16 unless the court directed otherwise. It is important because it affects sentencing, treatment and rehabilitation of children who have committed a criminal offence and, moreover, are themselves in need. It also highlights the complications involved in sex abuse by young offenders, and forces us to approach the problem of paedophiles realistically rather than in black-and-white terms of victims and monsters.
We are talking about people who are required to register, but who themselves are probably the victims. Approximately 50 per cent. of those who abuse children were abused themselves, and many of the young offenders we are discussing are still being abused by the adults around them. Recent scandals of paedophile rings in local authority care homes in Wales and Cheshire have shown the appalling prevalence of such situations. I was disturbed to learn the other day that a young constituent of mine was in one of the homes in Cheshire.
Any child who is in care should be looked after properly. The last thing that should happen is that they should be subject to abuse when they are supposed to be in care. Children who are suffering abuse can all too easily get mixed up in paedophile networks, abusing younger children because they think that it is the normal thing to do. The Bill is all about the protection of children, and child offenders should be treated separately from adult offenders. People involved in the treatment of young sex offenders, notably the National Association for the Development of Work with Sex Offenders and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation have both stressed that they do not believe that inclusion on a register is appropriate for children.
Also, the Childrens Charities Consortium—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Childline, the National Children's Home Action for Children, Barnardo's, Save the Children Fund, the National Children's Bureau, and the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations—for which the protection of the victims of sexual abuse is the highest priority, has expressed extreme disappointment that the Government have included young offenders in the Bill because there are more appropriate ways in which to deal with child offenders, and extra stigmatisation could be detrimental to a child's chances of rehabilitation.
Young child sex offenders highlight the importance of appropriate treatment procedures and full rehabilitation. I was extremely disturbed during the Second Reading debate at the lack of knowledge of the success of treatment programmes in dramatically reducing reoffending rates. If we want seriously to tackle the possibility of offenders reoffending—the issue at the heart of the Bill—we must look to proper treatment programmes.
Home Office research gives indisputable evidence of the effectiveness of treatment programmes, with an average 40 per cent. reduction in reoffending rates following the STEP programme—the sex offender treatment evaluation project. I was disappointed that the Home Office publication, dated 1994, is out of print. I asked for a copy of it. When I saw the Minister of State, Home Office, who is responsible for prisons, she indicated that she would let me have one. I never received it and I have had to borrow a copy from Don Finlater, who runs the excellent treatment programme at the Wolvercote clinic, directed by the Faithfull Foundation. The clinic has similar effectiveness. It is scandalous that the Department of Health has no plans for relocation of Wolvercote after selling off the present site.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department may be interested to know that on Monday I visited Ashworth special hospital and understood that it might be possible to find room on the Ashworth site for the location of a paedophile treatment centre. Therefore, if the Government are interested in providing residential treatment, that would be one possible site. Obviously, there would not be any requirement for planning permission.
If the Government view protection of children from sex offenders as a priority, they must make treatment a priority. If sex offenders are going to be released from prison once they have served their sentence, it is vital that we do all we can to ensure that they do not reoffend. Some members of the Children's Charities Consortium, for example the NSPCC and Barnardo's, have direct experience of working with young sex offenders through their treatment programmes. There is much evidence to show that young sex offenders are amenable to treatment and that appropriate intervention is likely to be more immediately effective than with adult offenders. It has been stressed to me that extra stigmatisation would not help treatment of such young children, so I call on the Government to provide more facilities for treatment for both adult and young sex abusers of children. For the Government not to do so is to fail in the duty to protect children.
The registration periods in the Bill relate to the sentence given. For juveniles, that can mean detention in a young offender institution or training in a training school. For sentences of under 30 months, the Bill cuts to 50 per cent. the length of time that under-18s have to register, but once children cross that 30-month threshold, they are required to register for life. That may mean just 30 months in a training school. It cannot be viewed as being such a serious matter if a child goes to a training school, which may be the most important treatment that the child can have, but then in doing so he could be required to register for life. The offence might be no more than having a photograph. A nine or 10-year-old, for example, might have been given a photograph by an adult abuser, admitted having the photograph, be sent to a 30-month training school and consequently discover that he must register for life. The possibility is quite bizarre.
Sentencing of child offenders should always place great emphasis on rehabilitation as well as on punishment. It is hoped that young offenders' treatment programmes will be extended because of their success in reducing reoffending rates. The time that a court decides is necessary for treatment should not be influenced by a judge's desire for the child not to come under the lifetime registration requirement provided in the Bill.
In Committee, the Minister said:
I emphasise strongly that there are no situations in which someone guilty of the relevant offences should be able to escape the registration requirement. Nor do I think that the registration period should be capable of alteration. The Bill sets tough periods of registration which will put a great obligation on people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 February 1997; c. 24.]
However, the Minister seemed to realise the inappropriateness of such an approach for young sex offenders. When I raised the possibility of a nine or 10-year-old being in possession of an indecent photograph, he said that it is
unlikely that a court would handle such a case so as to leave such a young child liable for a lifetime registration."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 6 February 1997; c. 771
I read that statement to mean that the Minister could envisage a situation in which someone guilty of the relevant offence should be able to escape the notification requirement.
The criminal justice system rightly treats juveniles differently from adults. The Bill should recognise that fact, rather than somehow, by sleight of hand, relying on judges not to be compromised in deciding the necessary treatment.
The Children's Charities Consortium was concerned with the consequences of parental responsibility for young offenders' registration, because, in many cases, young sex offenders may well be experiencing sexual abuse within their own families. We must realise that much sexual abuse occurs within families, and that a child might be required to register when he or she is abused.
I urge that area child protection committees should be the proper agencies for offenders aged under 16. Extra stigmatisation in such cases is unnecessary and unhelpful in children's treatment programmes, and courts should be able to order lengthy treatment programmes without feeling that they are inflicting on a child a lifetime's punishment. The principle of parental responsibility for the registration of young sex offenders is unsound because of the predominance of sex abuse within families.
I therefore believe that children under 16 should be removed from the notification requirements unless a court decides that compliance is appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment tabled and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and to give an example. Someone came to my constituency surgery who had served a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed when he was a teenager, although he is now an adult. He would have been subject to the registration provisions of this legislation. However, he has now settled down, put his prison period behind him and, I believe, effectively escaped from that part of his life.
Many believe that offences committed when one is under the age of 16 should be discounted for registration purposes and that, if we do not do so, there is no point in maintaining a statutory distinction between youths and adults. It is very important that society gets it right in establishing whether someone who has not reached his majority—even if he has reached the age of criminal

responsibility—should be dealt with differently and less seriously for offences committed at that age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East argued, it is very important that young people do not carry a stigma with them for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Government will respond in a positive manner to an enlightened and sensible proposal.

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has explained his desire to exclude some young offenders from the scope of the registration provisions. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, he sought to take under-16s out of registration altogether. Now he has modified that approach and seeks to give the courts discretion whether or not to impose the notification requirement in the case of under-16s.
I am afraid that I remain equally opposed to that approach. The key point is that registration is not a punishment, but a device to secure public protection from those who have committed serious offences—and, as we all know, some under-16s have been responsible for horrific sexual crimes.
In convicting an under-16 of such an offence, the court will already have considered whether the child appreciated that the action was wrong. The younger the offender, the more careful the court will have been in that respect, but having reached a decision on criminal liability, however, what possible basis could there be for the court to decide that registration was not necessary in a particular case? We have not provided for discretion elsewhere in the Bill, and I see no case for it in this instance.

Mr. Thurnham: I am extremely unhappy that the Government are not prepared to consider the amendment, and have given no indication that they might consider it further and table amendments in another place. I feel that I have put strong arguments.
The Bill is weakened by the fact that it contains bizarre provisions that could require an eight or nine-year-old to register for life. The Minister said that it was tough. On Second Reading, the Minister of State said that the Bill contained draconian measures. I find such requirements quite extraordinary. By not accepting earlier amendments that would have strengthened the Bill, we are in danger of producing a measure that is just a toothless soundbite. If it bites at all, it will bite on children themselves.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Before the hon. Gentleman launches into rhetoric about toothless soundbites, may I point out the nonsense of the statement that he has just made? One cannot convict an eight or nine-year-old. The age of criminal consent is 10. If that is the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to resist his proposals tonight.

Mr. Thurnham: I am amazed by that intervention, because the Minister of State professes to be something of an expert on Scotland. He comes from Scotland. The Bill would affect eight-year-olds in Scotland. I referred to nine and 10-year-olds. The age of criminal consent is 10 in England and eight in Scotland, so the Minister does


not appear to have read the Bill. That confirms once again that the Government have not addressed the matter properly.
I should like to divide the House on the amendment, but as the Government have not indicated that they wish to continue with the business after 10 o'clock, I find it necessary to withdraw the amendment. If it was not for the pressure of time, I would certainly wish to divide the House. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 5, line 20, leave out '(b) to (d)'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 8

EXTENSION OF JURISDICTION: SCOTLAND

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 10, line 1, leave out 'proving his' and insert 'setting out the'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 1

SEXUAL OFFENCES TO WHICH PART I APPLIES

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 12, leave out line 32 and insert—
'(a) Where the offender was under 20—

(i)paragraph (a)(v) and (vi) does not apply;
(ii)paragraph (a)(vii) and (viii) does not apply where the act would not have been an offence but for section 14(2) or section 15(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, unless the court has imposed a term of imprisonment for the offence; and
(iii)paragraph a(iii) does not apply unless the court, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, in the interests of child protection, so directs.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 35, after 'over;' insert—
'(bb) paragraph (a)(vi) above does not apply where the other party was 16 or over at the time of the offence and the offender was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.'

Mr. Michael: There is an anomaly in the Bill arising from the Government's wish to have a degree of flexibility in relation to teenagers. In schedule 1 the requirement to register in relation to three offences—intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16, buggery, and indecency between men—does not apply where the offender was under 20. The amendment rephrases that provision to deal differently with each of the offences.
As I said in Committee, intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16 is one of the excluded offences. I understand that the Minister wants to avoid individuals involved in teenage sex being forced to register on a permanent basis under the terms of a Bill that targets paedophiles. However, by excluding the 18-year-old who has sex with a girl of almost 16, the Bill also leaves out the 19-year-old who has sex with a girl who has only just reached her 13th birthday. That illustrates the enormous range and variety of the offences that can be caught under the Bill; some are much more serious than others and the Minister must surely intend to catch those cases, particularly when the offence is very serious.
I pointed out in Committee that Lord Woolf ruled that indecency between men can only be consensual. We need to ensure that we target those who are a danger to children and not those who are not. The amendment would include for registration any serious cases of indecency involving 16 or 17-year-olds with someone over 20 if the seriousness of the offence was such that a court had imposed a term of imprisonment, but it would not catch cases in which there was a closeness of age, which is parallel to the exclusion that the Minister has allowed for heterosexual sex.
The amendments are modest, aimed at ensuring fairness and that we hit the target of those who are a danger to children, without accidentally hitting those who are not a danger to children. The Minister has also sought not to target such people.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to intervene briefly to support the amendment.

Mr. Kirkhope: The aim of the first main proposal in amendment No. 22 is to exclude from the registration requirement offences of indecent assault on a girl or boy under 16 in which the so-called assault is in fact consensual, and no custodial sentence is imposed. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has focused on the fact that such behaviour may constitute an offence, even though consensual, because, under the 1956 Act, a child under 16 is not considered to be able to give consent to activities that, if non-consensual, would count as assault. The hon. Gentleman's solution is to seek to distinguish between serious and less serious cases with the test of imprisonment.
I agree that the amendment identifies a theoretical anomaly. A teenager who has committed consensual unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16 would avoid registration, whereas the same teenager, if charged with assault as a result of consensual indecent behaviour falling short of intercourse, would be required to register. I agreed in Committee to consider the matter further to see whether there was a way round that point. We have thought very hard about the matter, but we have concluded that any problem is more apparent then real, and that any solution would make the Bill more complex than it is already.
There could be difficulties, for example with offences tried before the passage of the Act, in knowing whether consent had been given, as the court would not necessarily have addressed that. We would have to put cases resulting in a custodial sentence in a separate category from, for example, those resulting in a community sentence, which could still be serious instances of the offence.
I do not believe that there is likely to be a problem in practice. I do not believe that cases are likely to come to court in respect of teenagers engaged in what are patently consensual intimate acts. The problem, if it exists, is inherent in the structure of the offences. Such offences could, in theory, occur whenever young teenagers cuddle one another, but I am not aware that prosecutions frequently take place following dances and discos for youngsters.
The second part of amendment No. 22 would toughen up the proposal in the Bill. Instead of our approach—under which the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse


with a girl between 13 and 16 would not attract registration if the offender was under 20—the amendment would give the court discretion to require registration when the interests of child protection made that appropriate.
I have some sympathy with the motivation behind the amendment. I undertook in Committee to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am not persuaded that his proposal is the answer. It would make the scheme more complex and would create a further category of offenders subject to the registration requirement. It would make enforcement more difficult, because the police would not know, from the facts of the case and the sentence passed, whether the offender was liable for registration. The court would be invited to exercise discretion on whether registration was required in the particular instance, which we have avoided elsewhere in the Bill.
I do not believe that there is a real cause for concern. We decided to exclude consensual teenage sexual activity from the scheme and have used the age point as the means of achieving that end. Any age point may appear somewhat arbitrary at the margins, but I do not believe that it is likely to mean that those who should register will escape the requirement.
The effect of amendment No. 23 would be to exclude registration in any case of indecency between men where the victim is over 16 years old. I am aware of the arguments for reducing the age of homosexual consent to 16, but the fact remains that Parliament has decided that for homosexual offences the age of 18 must remain the threshold. That being so, I am not prepared to lift registration where the offence is committed against someone who is a minor for those purposes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree not to press either of the amendments.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which acknowledged that basically there is an inconsistency. It seems that there is an inconsistency in one direction in the Bill, and we have sought at least to install fairness. That is all that we have sought to do. I should make it quite clear that we have not tried to go beyond what the Bill can do. As the Minister says, there is an argument in respect of the age of consent, but we have not sought to address that in any way, and I hope that he was not suggesting that we have.
Had the amendments been accepted, they would have taken us a step nearer fairness, balance and the protection of children. As the Minister clearly does not intend to accept them, I ask him to keep thinking and to talk to his colleagues in another place in the hope that we shall see fairness in the Bill before it completes its passage through Parliament.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 13, leave out lines 30 and 31

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 33.
Amendment No. 10, in page 13, line 36, after '(x)', insert
'subsections (5) and (6) of'.
Government amendments Nos. 34 to 39.
Amendment No. 7, in page 13, line 45, at end insert
'; and
(e) paragraphs (a)(viii) and (d)(x) do not apply where every person involved in the offence was 18 or over and was a willing participant.'.

Mr. Maclean: The broad purpose of this group of amendments is to align the Scottish offences with those in the list for England and Wales. Clearly it is important that there should be as close an alignment as possible between the two jurisdictions, so that offenders in different parts of the United Kingdom will be treated in the same way for registration purposes.
Half the amendments in the group cover homosexual offences, where we think it right to remove from the qualifying offences the Scottish offences that deal with procuring homosexual acts between two other men and those covering consensual adult homosexual activities. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and others are in similar terms. We clearly share the same objective of ensuring that there is parity of treatment between homosexual offenders on either side of the border.
Similar considerations apply to exclusion of the procuring offences involving women, which would not trigger registration south of the border, and to the inclusion of the Scottish offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl below the age of 13 where the offender is a teenager. In the amendments we have sought to achieve consistency across the jurisdictions.
Amendment No. 34 takes on board the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Dumbarton in Committee that there was an anomaly as between a person convicted of having intercourse with a step-child over the age of 18 and someone convicted of incest with a blood relative. The amendment cures that anomaly, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the Government's attention.
I commend the whole series of Government amendments to the House and I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press his own amendments.

Mr. McFall: I shall not press amendments Nos. 7 and 10. I thank the Minister very much for his consideration of the points made in Committee. When the matter was put to the Scottish Office there seemed to be little forthcoming, but in Committee we had a very fruitful discussion. Those who are concerned about the issues in Scotland are certainly very pleased with the action that the Government have taken.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 33, in page 13, line 36, at beginning insert "subsection (5) of'.
No. 34, in page 13, line 39, leave out '(vi)' and insert '(ii)'.
No. 35, in page 13, line 40, at end insert—
'() paragraphs (a)(viii) and (d)(x) above do not apply where every person involved in the offence, other than the offender, was 18 or over and was a willing participant;'.



No. 36, in page 13, line 43, leave out
'paragraphs (a)(viii) and (d)(x) do'
and insert 'paragraph (a)(viii) does'.
No. 37, in page 13, line 44, leave out second 'and'.
No. 38, in page 13, line 45, after "apply" insert "in the case of an offence in contravention of subsection (3) of section 5 (unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl over 13 but under 16)'.
No. 39, in page 13, line 45, at end insert
'and
() paragraph (d)(x) does not apply where the offender was under 20 and—
(i)where the offence involved an act of sodomy contrary to subsection (5) of section 13, every other person involved in the offence was a willing participant; or
(ii)the offence involved an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency contrary to the said subsection (5).'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 2

SEXUAL OFFENCES TO WHICH SECTION 7 APPLIES

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 15, line 37, at end insert—
'(ia) section 4 (Administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse);'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 17 (Abduction of a girl by force).'.
Amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 20 (Abduction of an unmarried girl under 16 from parent or guardian).'.
Amendment No. 28, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 22A (Causing prostitution of girls).'.
Amendment No. 29, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 24 (Detention of girl in brothel or other premises).'.
Amendment No. 30, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 25 (Permitting girl under 13 to use premises for intercourse).'.
Amendment No. 31, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 28 (Causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with or indecent assault on a girl under 16).'.
Government amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

Mr. Michael: I shall be very brief, because we raised the issues addressed in the amendments in Committee. I tabled the amendments because of the undertaking given by the Minister to consider the issues further. I hope that he will be able to respond positively. The amendments would add additional offences to the list of offences in schedule 2, because it would be anomalous if they were not included. They include administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse; assault with intent to commit buggery; the abduction of a girl by force; the abduction of an unmarried girl under 16 from parent or guardian; causing prostitution of girls; the detention of a girl in brothel or other premises; permitting a girl under 13 to use premises for intercourse; and causing or

encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with or indecent assault on a girl under 16. It seemed odd that those offences were not included in schedule 2 and, in Committee, the Minister undertook to consider their inclusion.

Mr. Kirkhope: It is worth recalling the origin of the list in schedule 2. It is substantially the same as that contained in the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996—that is to say, the offences of child sexual abuse in respect of which the UK courts now have jurisdiction when conspiracies or incitements take place in this country to commit those offences abroad. In a sense, that Act created a standard list of the acts of child sex abuse likely to be committed by sex tourists, and I do not recall that there were concerns that that list was incomplete or had missed out significant offences.
In drafting the Bill, we followed that earlier list, but we decided to add the main child pornography offences. The member states of the European Union agreed last autumn, in the aftermath of the terrible Belgian case, on a joint action to combat the trafficking in women and children for sexual exploitation. Taking extra-territorial jurisdiction over child pornography offences was one of the provisions in that agreement, in recognition of the link—whether causal or not—that often exists between the sexual abuse of children and child pornography.
I was pressed in Committee to consider going wider, and to include a much longer list of offences in the Bill. I undertook to consider that proposal, and have tabled an amendment to add one further offence—assault with intent to commit buggery. I concluded that that was an offence that might be committed by a British sex tourist abroad. I do not believe that the same applies to the other offences that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has proposed adding. Some are concerned with the organising of prostitution, or allowing the use of premises for under-age sexual activity to take place, and I do not believe they are likely to be committed by Britons who will subsequently return to this country.
Others in the hon. Gentleman's list—for example, amendments Nos. 26 and 27—are focused on abduction for the purposes of sexual intercourse and, again, relate more to what may be done by those promoting prostitution abroad, rather than the actions of our own nationals and residents. The Bill is targeted at our own sex tourists, and I believe that it will, as drafted, and with the addition of the offence of assault with intent to commit buggery, catch the offenders at whom it is directed.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the Minister's response and for the fact that he has taken the trouble to consider the matter further, as promised. We would have liked him to move further, but at least his consideration has proved fruitful.
At every stage of the Bill, we have sought to improve it and speed its passage. It is a measure that we have long desired to see on the statute book. I therefore do not intend to prolong our debate now, and I am sure that the matter will be considered further in another place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 15, line 41, leave out 'and'.
No. 3, in page 15, line 42, at end insert
'and
(vii) section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery);'.
No. 4, in page 16, line 1, leave out '(iv), (v) and (vi)' and insert 'and (iv) to (vii)'.
No. 5, in page 16, line 11, leave out
'indecent assault upon a male person'
and insert
'(assault with intent to commit buggery or indecent assault upon a male person)'.[Mr. Maclean.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Today's debate has covered a number of aspects of the Bill, some of which have been specific—for example, whether this or that offence should be included—and other points have been much wider, including, for example, the complicated issue of police practice in the use and disclosure of information.
It has not been possible for the Government to accept all the points that have been made. None the less, I appreciate the spirit in which they have been put forward from both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in our proceedings, whether tonight, in Committee or on Second Reading.
Our debate on the Bill has strengthened and improved it as a measure for the protection of children. I am also grateful for the input to the debate provided by others with an interest. The police and other agencies involved with child welfare have provided invaluable insights into the practical aspects of how the registration requirement will work.
Those have enabled us to develop and improve on our original proposals to ensure that the registration requirement will really work in practice. I cannot emphasise too much how grateful I am to those people, especially those in the Association of Chief Police Officers, who have been enormously helpful.
I hope, therefore, that the Bill will conclude its parliamentary passage quickly, so that it can soon begin to provide the added protection for our children that is its prime aim.

Mr. McFall: I welcome the progress that the Government have made. As has been said already, we had a fruitful discussion in Committee, Frankly, however, I do not believe that the Government have moved far enough. The Bill will play its part in what needs to be a more comprehensive response to child abuse. The omission that we tried to put right by tabling new clauses 2 and 3 will weaken it considerably.
We must take account of public opinion. I feel that Parliament is out of synch with public opinion. The Minister is aware of the situation in Scotland. Only today, Scotland's best-selling newspaper, the Daily Record, devotes its front page to "Scotland's Child Abuse Scandal".
The Daily Record is setting up an eight-point campaign to highlight the issue—a campaign that I support in detail. The paper says that information on child sex offences in Scotland is not available. It points out that statistics on cruelty to animals are available, but that on sex offences the information is not forthcoming.
People from the Daily Record contacted the Secretary of State's Office in Scotland but were told that he was too busy. Only last week the right hon. Gentleman contacted a local newspaper reporter whom I know. An open letter had been written, and the Secretary of State invited the reporter into his office to put his point of view. Yet when he was asked which information was available and which was not, he was too busy to reply.
The newspaper also contacted the Crown Office for information, but there, too, the message was that there was none. When will the Government put that information into the public domain? By failing to do so, they do a disservice to the many hundreds, even thousands, of people affected.
The sad fact is that paedophiles cause manifold damage. For every case that comes to court, hundreds of similar offences have been committed. Aberdeen university recently undertook a study in which 34 sex offenders, who had been convicted of 115 offences among them, confessed to having actually committed 1,500 offences. The court cases are the tip of the iceberg.
It is ironic that it should be this evening, when "No Child of Mine" is being screened—it could be happening at this very moment—that we are passing legislation that does not go far enough. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I went to the presentation of "No Child of Mine". I did not see any other Members of Parliament there. It was a long film, and the hon. Lady walked out. So far as I know, she had first asked, "Why is this being shown?"
That is symptomatic of the approach that our society has taken. We cannot deal with child abuse here: sure, we can deal with it when it is abroad—in Bangkok and other such places—but if it happens in Glasgow, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Bournemouth or wherever, then we cannot deal with it.
We must face up to the issues. The Government's lack of resolve was illustrated by the fact that they wanted to enact the legislation through a private Member's Bill. Only the resolve of the Opposition ensured that we had a Government Bill. We want the Bill to succeed, but it does not go far enough. The Government have shown themselves out of sync with the people.
The Minister mentioned Belgium and Marc Dutroux. We do not want to wait until such a situation arises here. That is why we want the Government to go further. The campaign will not stop here. It will go on and on. Vision has been required of the Government, but they have shown a lack of deep thought. This is unfinished business: the Opposition welcome the Bill, but there is much more to do to protect our young people. That message should go out loud and clear from Parliament tonight as we welcome the provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Thurnham: I support the Bill, but I feel that it is only half or a quarter of a loaf. I hope that it will be strengthened in another place in the manner for which we argued on Second Reading, in Committee, and again today.
There should be a code of practice to give guidance to the police and, most of all, there should be a requirement for previous offenders who are known to the police to register. At present, about 50,000 previous offenders escape the provisions of the Bill. It should be simple for the police, when they are in contact with them, to require notification of a change of address.
The Bill should be strengthened, and I hope that my arguments about children will be well considered in the other place, without the pressures of time that we have had tonight. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book, but I hope that it will do so in a greatly improved state.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

FUTURE NOISE POLICY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11419/96, the Commission Green Paper on future noise policy; and endorses the Government's objective of opposing a number of the proposals on noise exposure when presenting the response of the United Kingdom to the Green Paper to the European Commission.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

PETITIONS

Child Protection

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have two petitions to present—one on the Lever Park Bill and one, most appropriately, on the Sex Offenders Bill that we have been debating tonight. Even more appropriately, the latter comes from Oundle school in Northamptonshire—the school that I went to and one that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know well—and bears the signatures of more than 800 pupils and staff. The petition says:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Staff and Students of Oundle School in the county of Northamptonshire with Members of Action for Children Campaign and other Citizens of the United Kingdom,
Sheweth that we have deep concern at continuing reports that citizens of developed nations travelling abroad may be encouraging the use of children in prostitution and pornography, that we are committed to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which seeks to protect children from sexual exploitation; and believe that Her Majesty's Government should seek to play an active role in bringing about concerted international action to tackle this problem and in particular examine ways of ensuring that individuals involved in such exploitation are brought to justice within the United Kingdom.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do introduce legislation to ensure that citizens of the United Kingdom who commit serious sexual offences against children abroad can be prosecuted in this country.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Lever Park Bill

Mr. Thurnham: The second petition bears 5,807 signatures and concerns the Lever Park Bill. It says:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the people of Bolton North East and the surrounding areas, including the members of the Owls Motorcycle Club,
Sheweth that they oppose the proposed development of Lever Park in Bolton.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House reject the Lever Park Bill in order to preserve free access to the park for the public, in accordance with Lord Leverhulme's wishes.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Empty Homes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley): My debate relates to empty homes, but at this time of night it might better have related to an empty Chamber. There are 800,000 empty homes, and this important matter was the subject of my ten-minute Bill on 27 February 1996. Since then, the number of empty homes has fallen by 15,000 but that disguises the fact that public sector voids have risen. Great play is often made of the fall in the provision of new homes from nearly 400,000 in the 1960s to fewer than 200,000 in 1990.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Brandreth.]
While no one would suggest that the huge stock of void premises would resolve both the demand for new homes and the need to house homeless people, a fair analysis of the housing market would place much more emphasis on facilitating the release of more empty houses for use.
House builders lament the fall in the number of new homes, perhaps not surprisingly. Luminaries such as Michael Ball of South Bank university and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation conclude that more house building is needed. They make powerful arguments but they must be put alongside other factors.
The number of public sector empty homes rose last year. Local authorities voids went up from 2 to 2.3 per cent. of stock. In housing associations, voids rose from 2.4 to 2.5 per cent. In other public sector bodies, including Government Departments, voids went up from 16 to 17 per cent. More details have been supplied today to the Library.
Conventional wisdom on housing policy gives almost exclusive attention to new building. We need a wider horizon. First, new buildings often infill existing housing space and destroy the character of our neighbourhoods in north London and elsewhere. Secondly, in consequence of infilling with new houses, it is less likely that we will be able to find places off the roads to park and store the burgeoning number of vehicles that this prosperous Government have produced.
Thirdly, new land is often used because demolition and site clearance or, worse, decontamination of existing sites, are expensive. Fourthly, it takes pressure off the need to use existing housing. Fifthly, and fundamental to this debate, it is an indictment of us all that housing is kept empty. It is frustrating, and annoying to the homeless. It creates an eyesore and is a blight on adjacent housing stock. Finally, empty homes often lead to squatting, which is ghastly for all concerned.
My debate aims to examine a new way in which to encourage, and in some cases compel, the use of empty public property. I have been greatly assisted by the Empty Homes Agency. I have advised the all-party group on homelessness and housing needs of my proposals. I am pleased that there is widespread interest and support. Everyone recognises the overwhelming need to make the best possible use of our housing stock, not least because the homeless deserve the support of the House.

Dr. Robert Spink: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this most important debate.

Will he join me in paying tribute to The Big Issue for running a petition that seeks to bring into use empty housing stock, which would go almost all the way to resolving our homelessness problem?

Mr. Booth: I am grateful for that intervention, which was perspicacious, if not telepathic, because my next sentence is that I commend the concern of the magazine, The Big Issue, which has also supported my Bill.
Although this is not ten-minute rule procedure, I take this opportunity briefly to explain to the House the proposals contained in my Bill, which I believe will be useful. They are contained in an ambitious draft document entitled "The Empty Homes Bill 1997". The Bill gives formal expression to ideas on how we could better use unoccupied buildings. It requires local authorities to designate an empty property officer responsible for securing the re-use of unoccupied residential buildings owned by public bodies within the authority's area.
It is always open to a Government who might wish to introduce the policy to allow for the appointment of a surveyor from the private sector to act as such an officer, rather than add to a local authority's payroll. The officer would be empowered to investigate ownership and order the reoccupation of all unoccupied buildings owned by local authorities, Government Departments and executive agencies, including housing associations, by people in housing need. I suggest that the residential building should have been unoccupied for six months, although the precise period could be settled later.
My previous attempt to propose policy in this area was construed by some merely as an attack on local authorities. This Bill takes an all-party approach—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in an Adjournment debate he cannot promote a Bill. I am sure that he is referring to a document or some other piece of material.

Mr. Booth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being so courteous in your instruction.
This document takes an all-party approach, and attacks all public bodies from both central and local government. Paragraph 2.4 of my suggested policy provides a comprehensive list of those bodies. It is important to give the new empty property officers some power, so the next section empowers them to investigate and obtain information about the ownership and control of void property, then to recover their expenses against the body responsible for that empty home.
Officers may publish details of property if they feel that publication will, in itself, secure the swift re-use of residential premises. They are also empowered to contact the owner in writing, ordering reoccupation of the building within 28 days. They can further order that the residential occupant may be a family or household in housing need. Their power to order the use of an empty property has some exemptions, one of which is the Ministry of Defence in certain circumstances. Empty homes officers can also exempt those who have satisfied them that they will use their property within six months or demolish it within that period. Obviously, in the real world one must allow for those changes.
The county court would be given the authority to supervise the proceedings and provide a safeguard to balance the needs of public bodies with the dire needs


of homeless families. The county court's power may include ordering a grant of freehold or leasehold to a family in certain circumstances. The business of property rights, however, is tricky. Public bodies own nothing in their own right but are simply trustees for all of us.
The public need to be protected and, in addition to inserting the role of the county court, the next section of my proposal ensures that, if a conflict of interests arises between an empty homes officer and his local authority, a neighbouring authority should nominate an alternative officer through the good offices of the Secretary of State, represented tonight by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
The proposers of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which allowed people to require the disposal of property, will find it interesting that there is an admirable example of a link with their pioneer legislation. I propose that the public request to order disposal of land and buildings procedure—what a mouthful—known as PROD for short, be harnessed to require disposal of certain homes to meet local authority or local housing need. In all cases, where freeholds are transferred, compensation will come into the equation.
Last but not least, under my Bill local authorities would be required to prepare and publish an empty properties strategy each year, to secure the re-use of unoccupied residential premises in their area. The duty follows full consultation with landlords and professional advisers, and should include information on the number of unoccupied properties in the authority area and provide details of ownership and location. Annual targets should be set, and measures that the local authority considers practical should be agreed to achieve full occupation.
It is our duty in the House to provide for the needs of those who find it hardest to help themselves, and those who are homeless must join the top of the list. It is to our shame that we have in our country so many empty properties yet about 150,000 people are defined by law as homeless. The Government have done a great deal, through the rough sleepers initiative, which I commend, and a host of other policies for the homeless, but I and others still identify a problem.
Unlike most problems, the problem contains the seeds of its own solution; uniquely, we can solve one problem by putting another right. We can substantially resolve the problem of homelessness by putting right our failure as a community to use empty public property adequately. For the sake of our cities, for the sake of the good name of the House and for all those who have no homes tonight, I urge the House that, better than acting, we should enact my proposal.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on an important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) has demonstrated before the House his long-standing knowledge and expertise on this subject, in which he has taken a great interest for many years.
I assure my hon. Friend that it is of continuing concern to the Government that every potential home in the public or private sector be used. The Government's best estimates point to a 4.4 million growth in the number of

households between 1991 and the year 2016 and, as my hon. Friend rightly argued, against that background we must have a strategy that makes best use of all existing housing. We cannot afford to have homes lying empty, for the reasons that my hon. Friend eloquently set out, and the desire to make best use of our homes is widely shared, as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) emphasised in his intervention.
The latest figures, for 1 April 1996, show a welcome overall estimated 9 per cent. reduction in the number of vacant dwellings in England since April 1993. That is welcome news, but every home lying empty unnecessarily—owned by a local authority or housing association or privately owned—is a wasted resource, which could provide a home for someone in housing need.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration said when launching the empty homes week of action on 17 February, there is a role for each of us to play in addressing the problem. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and the House will agree, after hearing my response to his speech, that much is already being done by the Government and all the relevant agencies.
Empty homes fall into different categories, according to their ownership. I will deal first with the local authority sector. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced on 14 February that the number of local authority "management" vacants—dwellings that are ready for occupation immediately, or after minor works—rose to 47,700 at 1 April 1996, from 41,000 in April 1995. That is disappointing news. My hon. Friend made some observations about that, with which it is hard to disagree.
The Government encourage local authorities to find ways of maximising the use of their existing stock. Authorities can do that in a number of ways. For example, they can reduce under-occupation, first by ensuring that tenants are allocated homes that are the right size for their needs; secondly, by using transfers, exchanges and mobility schemes to release under-occupied dwellings, and thirdly, by using cash incentive schemes to encourage tenants to move to smaller homes or to buy a home in the private sector.
Collaboration between housing associations and local authorities to tackle under-occupation is essential. Local authorities can use their nomination rights to housing associations' dwellings and they can work with housing associations on planning new developments so as to achieve the right size of dwelling and type of housing.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best things that local authorities can do, especially those who deal with run-down local authority housing estates, is to pass those estates to the ownership of non-profit-making organisations, which generally run them much better, in the interests of tenants and the homeless?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend will be aware of the efforts that we have made to promote housing transfer and to bring private investment into housing, and especially of the efforts that we have made to help the poorest estates, through the estates renewal challenge fund. It gave me pleasure yesterday to visit in Durham one of the first of those estates to pass to a housing association. That has been met with great optimism in Durham.
Housing associations' performance in minimising their empty properties is generally good, and their vacancy rate is fairly stable. Housing associations are now required, collectively, to generate 500 extra lettings each year, by bringing vacant levels down further. The Housing Corporation publishes performance indicators which show that the target is being met. We can expect continued improvements as the corporation takes an increasing interest in the performance of individual housing associations.
The Government fully accept that they, too, should keep their own house in order. Government Departments have made great strides over the past few years to tackle the problem of empty homes. The number of empty homes on the civil estate fell by almost 600 between April 1995 and April 1996, and more exacting targets were set for 1996–97. That is on top of significant reductions achieved the previous year. We are particularly keen to ensure that Departments do not hold on to their empty properties for long periods. That is why we have set separate targets for tackling properties that are empty for more than six months.
Our key objective remains that of getting empty Government-owned properties into the hands of those who can make best use of them, and we encourage Government Departments to consider the option of sale or lease for social housing. Sale to the private sector can also help to address housing need, by creating home ownership opportunities and expanding the supply of rented housing.
One of the notable facts about empty homes is that by far the greatest number of vacancies is in the private rented sector. It is encouraging to see that the numbers of empty homes in the private sector have fallen, from 690,000 in 1995 to 667,000 in 1996. Nobody pretends that it is easy to find a solution to the problem, as the reasons for privately owned property lying empty are complex. Research carried out for my Department by a university showed that many privately owned properties are empty for valid reasons, reflecting normal transactions in the market. However, there are longer-term, problematic vacancies that require attention.
Local authorities have a role in tackling that problem, not only by keeping their own empty properties to a minimum, but by developing a corporate approach, working in partnership with housing associations, private owners and developers, property professionals and other public and voluntary sector bodies.
The problem of empty homes cannot be tackled in isolation. The most effective projects are part of broader-based regeneration programmes, tackling housing problems alongside unemployment, training, crime prevention and so on. For that reason, we have maintained the existing level of funding under the single regeneration budget for this year.
However, the most important role for Government is to create the conditions for a healthier housing market and remove obstacles to its effective working. The housing market is now on a firm upward trend. Low interest rates and low inflation mean that housing is now more affordable than it has been since the early 1970s. There could not be a better time for the first-time buyer to enter the market.
We have also put together a package of measures that will make letting a home easier and safer, and that will play an important part in encouraging more owners of empty properties to let them. The Housing Act 1988 made letting an empty property a more viable option by removing rent control and introducing the assured shorthold tenancy. The Housing Act 1996 progressed the situation further, making it easier for owners to let their properties on an assured shorthold tenancy and for landlords to get their properties back if tenants do not pay their rent or cause a nuisance to local people.
My hon. Friend went into some detail about his ideas for tackling these problems, such as appointing an empty property officer. I hope that he will not mind if I do not go into the details of his proposals. I know that my hon. Friend has had some interesting discussions about them. I assure him that we are anxious to see the records of some local authorities improve in this field. We want the worst performers to try to lift their standards to those of the best, who have set a good example in this area. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) seems unable to restrain himself, so I shall give way.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I have restrained myself from commenting in the debate so far. I apologise to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) for arriving late to the Chamber owing to a prior housing engagement. Nevertheless, I told him that I was keen to be present for the debate. I welcome his initiative in raising the issue of empty properties. As to the percentage of properties that are currently void, no local authority in the country has as bad a record as some Government Departments. I hope that the Minister will adopt the view that the Government should take the lead by putting their own house in order before they lecture others about the proportion of empty properties.

Mr. Clappison: I have already set out our approach to that situation, and the emphasis that we place on Government Departments' minimising the number of empty properties. However, I cannot allow to pass without comment the fact that the performances of local authorities vary widely in this area, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out in his speech. The fact that some authorities are not reaching the standards of the best authorities means that hundreds—in some cases, even a thousand—properties are lying empty at a time of housing need.
Figures issued recently show the different performances of local authorities. The London borough of Islington has slightly more than 4 per cent. management vacancies, which is approximately twice the average for England. Other prominent offenders are Blackburn with 3.59 per cent., Tameside with 2.73 per cent., and Trafford with 2.74 per cent. They are percentages, but we will get some idea of the housing need if we look at the absolute figures. Some 1,484 properties are standing empty in Islington, 408 in Blackburn, 510 in Tameside and 320 in Trafford—nearly 3,000 potential homes. Other authorities in a


similar position to those authorities manage to achieve a much better rate. It would be possible for the authorities to meet the housing needs of many hundreds of people.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Back-Bench Adjournment debate, and it should not be abused by Front Benchers.

Mr. Clappison: I hope that I have answered my hon. Friend's points and the concerns that he expressed about local authorities. While I do not want to go into all the details, we think that local authorities have an important role to play and we want them to meet high standards.
We regard empty property strategies as important, and we encourage local authorities to include a means of dealing with those properties in their housing strategies. We have given them every encouragement in that regard.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Empty Homes Agency, which was launched in 1992 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the present Secretary of State for Transport. My Department is part funding the agency for three years to work with local authorities to develop empty property strategies. The agency has made considerable progress: it is in contact with more than 250 authorities, some 160 of which are now taking specific action to reduce the number of empty properties in their areas. I am confident that that number will continue to grow.
We are playing an active role in addressing the problem on several fronts. It is a very important subject, and my hon. Friend has done the House a service by raising it this evening and by advancing his interesting, innovative and well-thought-out ideas.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.